Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Curiosity

The Big Bang

Do you believe in the big bang theory?   32 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe in the big bang theory?

    • Yes
      22
    • No
      4
    • Not sure
      6

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

25 posts in this topic

I have to do this humungous project on the universe for a science assignment. The more info I can get, the better. wink2.gif Thanks to anyone who participates. original.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes,it makes the most sense of any theory I've heard so far. If you need info, here's a link that explains the theory simply but thoroughly..

Here come da' Bang!

..also the Big Bang is the best name for a theory ever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I do. Especially the more I read about the conversion of energy into matter. Otherwise you have the problem of where did the matter come from. Energy creating the matter makes sense. What I don't neccessarily believe is that the expanding universe will contract, I think that each universe might have it's own kind of ending depending on the inerta of its initial explosion. Some may close, some stall and remain open, some contract? (Obviously you're getting an answer from a Stephen Hawking fan) Good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted not sure.

I suspect multiple bangs on multiple occasions, some bangs creating and some destroying and some doing both.

Usually with a theory we can wait for it to happen again to make further readings. The Big Bang theory as the start of the universe is almost identical to that of a super nova. So we know the process happens, if there was an original Bang that pre-empted all other bangs would be hard to discern. Our galaxy I believe to be the reminants of a super nova.

Read this about supernovas and picture it happening as one original Bang, its hard to figure, thats why I like the multiple bangs happening for eternity and been happening since eternity. http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/snr.html

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but really it has to make sence that in the begining there was nothing, therefore there was no matter, no energy.....nothign at all. so what created the big bang if there was noghing to create it? maybe we have to look at it like this.......if there was nothing then there where no rules, no restrictions no nothing therefore it makes sence that anything could spontaniously happen with out the need for an explenation because no rules would be broken or anything, therefore if suddendly there where a spark of energy or something that created the big bang then theres no need for an explination for where that energy came from to suddendly start the big bang, does this make any sence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted "yes", but there is still a lot of work to be done before there can be a definitive answer. However, given what we already know about cosmology and quantum theory, it is the most likely candidate for the definitive answer.

Doesn't mean that other theories, like the revised Steady State Theory, won't be excluded or even turn out to be more correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't mean that other theories, like the revised Steady State Theory, won't be excluded or even turn out to be more correct.

What's the Steady State Theory? huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the Steady State Theory

"The steady-state theory is a view that the universe is always expanding but maintaining a constant average density, matter being continuously created to form new stars and galaxies at the same rate that old ones become unobservable as a consequence of their increasing distance and velocity of recession. A steady-state universe has no beginning or end in time; and from any point within it the view on the grand scale--i.e., the average density and arrangement of galaxies--is the same. Galaxies of all possible ages are intermingled" http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

I found this really cool site too Whisper9, it has ample info about the big bang and subsequent events. http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosm...ocs/splash.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but really it has to make sence that in the begining there was nothing, therefore there was no matter, no energy.....nothign at all. so what created the big bang if there was noghing to create it? maybe we have to look at it like this.......if there was nothing then there where no rules, no restrictions no nothing therefore it makes sence that anything could spontaniously happen with out the need for an explenation because no rules would be broken or anything, therefore if suddendly there where a spark of energy or something that created the big bang then theres no need for an explination for where that energy came from to suddendly start the big bang, does this make any sence?

Well it makes as much sense as anything, but at the end of the day, which ever theory you go along with, it all starts with Problem A. Where did the first matter/energy/God/whatever come from.

If there was nothing, how did something 'appear'. How could anything always have been there; how could it have no beginning?

One thing is for sure, it's something I will never be able to get my head around. I admit defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

big bang... 'em scientists 'em smart bounce.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in the big bang because nothing can't explode into something. No matter what all them scientists say, they still can't figure out where all that energy came from. But I should've voted not sure because one, I wasn't there to know for sure and two, when God did create the universe, the universe could've started out with an explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so saucy you believe that god created the universe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It may not have been a gigantic explosion or bang, but I feel it was a natural occurance.

Edited by Benjo Koolzooie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. I wasn't there. Since I do believe the bible, I guess I would believe God created the universe. The universe screams design and a designer should be the scientific default, but it is not. So what, when the universe exploded (out of nothing) then what happened? All this energy expanded outward. What was the energy? How was all the stars created? Why are some stars dying while others are being born and half-way through life? How come some galaxies are larger than others? If all the universe was created at the same time, how come some galaxies have expanded further than others? It just doesn't make sense. All the stars have the same life span, don't they? But apparently some stars are made of different gases and are either hotter or cooler than others. How can that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I would have thought that the fact that stars being born and dying and so on would 'prove' that the galaxy has "a mind of its own" and that these expansions and explosions that take place are natural occurances.

There is plenty of gases mixing together in space to create hot/cold environments.

I can't give major details tough as I ain't a space boffin. So one of those may explain the questions you asked. tongue.gif

I am not saying a God didn't create the universe. But I'm not saying one did. I am just simply commenting on the fact we still see the universe changing - due to its own natural occurances, so what's to say that some sort of 'bang' did not start this whole thing off?

Edited by Benjo Koolzooie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that if everything was created at the same time, during the same big bang that created everything, then all the stars and planets should be the same age. They're not. Some stars are old and dying, others are newer and others are middle-aged. If all the matter around the sun was the same age, then why is some of the matter, such as Mercury and that, extremely close to the sun? Why do a few of the planets move around the sun in a different direction than others? How come the gassier, heavier planets are further out in the solar system while the lighter, smaller planets are closer in? There are so many irregularities in our universe, galaxy and solar system for everything to have been created at the same time during one event. Even if it was, where did all the matter come from to start the big bang? What exactly banged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I could explain to you , Saucy, what you have posed there in a rather long question, but I won't do it on this forum, in detail, as it would take up too much server space.

However, the long and the short of it is this........the "Big Bang" only created hydrogen, helium and a very small amount of lithium. So for all intents and purposes the extremely early universe was just a huge cloud of hydrogen and helium (in the proportions 75% and 25% respectively). The elements such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen were forged in the cores of the first stars that formed shortly afterwards (about 250-300 million years later). They formed from small irregularities in the density of the gas in the universe. These stars were huge compared to stars today....some reaching 1000 solar masses, and they scattered the new elements into the universe in supernova explosions. Star formation rates in those days were also a lot higher than now, so many of these stars were formed in a short period of time. Stars which formed after the deaths of these giants incorporated the elements the older stars shed in the supernovae. It is also from these shed elements that planets began to form in orbits about the stars.

So as stars die and shed their meaterial, elements are scattered into space to form new stars and planets.....it's an ongoing cycle.

Planets form in the accretion disks which develop from the materials that condense to form stars. The accretion disk is made up of materials which haven't yet accreted onto the star. Smaller, rocky planets form in close to a star because the temperatures there drive off volatiles such as ices, hydrogen, helium etc and leave only heavier materials such as rock, iron etc. However the further out from the central star you go, the cooler it gets so things like water can survive in the inner disk's middle and outer portions. The Gas Giants form where they do because it's in the cooler parts of the disk where ices and that can survive and also where there is an enormous amount of materials (ices, hydrogen and helium etc) to form them.

All the planets orbit the Sun in the same direction....anticlockwise, but Venus rotates on it's axis in a clockwise direction. Probably due to a massive impact early in it's history.....and subsequent gravitational interactions with the Sun and the Earth. Uranus' axis is tipped over to 96 degrees for the same reason, a massive impact.

Galaxies formed from the same irregularities as the first stars did, however they formed from much larger clumps of gas than the stars within them.

Actually the term "Big Bang" was a derogatory term created by Fred Hoyle, a physicist who had a competing theory called the Steady State Theory. The term was liked by the proponents of the theory so it stuck. In actual fact, it was more like a "freezing out" of energy and matter than an explosion as such.....although the expansion of space during the Inflationary Epoch could be considered explosive. What happened is that when the universe underwent what is called Inflation, the four forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces), spacetime and energy were all in balance with one another. An aspect called symmetry. At the beginning of Inflation, the universe as we know it was smaller than a proton (10^-33cms), but at the end it was 10^50 or so times larger. When it reached this size, inflation in the manner it was occuring, stopped and symmetry became broken. The four forces of nature began to "freeze" out of the previous symmetry beginning with gravity, followed by the nuclear forces and then electromagnetism. Once this started, all the energy that was stored in the symmetrical spacetime beforehand also froze out and an enormous increase in the temperature of the universe occured. This created all the elementary particle and such we have today and also led to the creation of the hydrogen gas and such which formed first up. It also created the vacuum that we know of today in space. When symmetry was broken, the vacuum changed from a high energy, repulsive false vacuum to the low energy "true" vacuum we know today.

I've probably lost you by now, so I won't go on any further but if you would like to know more feel free to ask.

Edited by Ozmeister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you for explaining that in a way which, I never could. laugh.gif

Edited by Benjo Koolzooie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's alright Benjo......all that happens to be my field of interest (along with Geology......and science in general).

Just as an addendum......during and before Inflation, the four fundamental forces were one force. When they freeze out of symmetry (more correctly supersymmetry) is when they become separate entities. Basically GUT's (Grand Unified Theory). I could also talk about String Theory and such but that would've left him lost even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could also talk about String Theory and such but that would've left him lost even more.

Never mind losing him.....

I'm heading back to cryptozoology! tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

ok here's my two cents

There is energy in a vaccum, if there were none, light would not be able to pass through it. In space , any given area has the same amount of energy, even though space is constantly expanding- and accelerating. A theory on why this is ; the force of acceleration pulling on the vaccum causes tension, which replaces the energy dissapated by expansion.

Light travels through this vaccum at 300,000 km/sec, which is usually assumed to be the speed limit. However, the universe is accelerating in its expansion. If it gets to a critical rate of acceleration, there will be a considerable amount more energy in empty space which would allow light to travel faster. If enough energy were to be created due to expansion, the speed of light could reach at or near infinite speed. It would not last , the tension on the vaccum energy would cause it to collapse in on itself and form matter. (In its simplest form - hydrogen). This would casually put all matter in contact and explain the uniformity of the universe.

*The speed of light would be reduced drastically at this point (perhaps at or near its current speed), and would also cause whats known as a 'horizon'. A point which cannot be seen beyond, due to light not traveling fast enough to observe objects past that point.

The result would be comparable to current big bang theories, as well as answer more of the big questions left unanswered by those theories.

The reason that i dont believe in the big bang theory as it stands today is that there is no point in which we can say : that pea sized first step in the big bang happened here x. there is no singularity, no point which stands firm as the beginning.

when the hubble telescope looks back in time (yes thats what it does) there is a point which cannot be seen beyond. this is called the light horizon. if current big bang theory is correct, the further away hubble looks, the brighter it SHOULD get. the reason being that the big bang would have been a very hot , instntaneous expansion. heat makes light so where is the light? its been proven that the further you look back , the earlier in development galaxies are so we are looking in the right direction.

these are just 2 examples of big questions left unanswered by the widely accepted big bang theory.

I hope you find this interesting.

(I especially like the subtle hint that this could happen many times over. We may never know what the true beginning was)!

*this post was cut and pasted from previous posts from this thread. I only cut and pasted, so i would not have to re-type it all over again.

Edited by UniversalAbsurdity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why you can't find the spot marked "x" and say "here began the Big Bang", is that the point you speak of doesn't lie within the universe. To the universe itself, the Big Bang happened everywhere all at once. Remember, what we see as the universe is just a very small part of a much larger object, which itself is just the "skin" so to speak of the whole object. The balloon analogy is a good one, for explaining the geometry.

To find the actual site of the bang, you would have to travel through higher dimensional space (superspace) to find it.

So far as the universe's accelerated expansion goes......this only became apparent after the universe reached 2 billion years of age. It was slowing down as per normal before that time because the cosmological constant wasn't large enough at the time to counter the deceleration (ie: to counter gravity). Now it is, and the universe's expansion has been accelerating ever since.

The energy of the vacuum is the zero point field of the vacuum. It's the energy generated by the random quantum fluctuations of the field (of spacetime itself). If it was completely empty of energy, the temp of space itself would be at absolute zero, because all the "normal" energy in the universe would "drain" into the vacuum zero point field until it was balanced out (conservation of energy....1st Law of Thermodynamics). Light would freeze still.....photons would have no energy at all.

For light to have had velocity variance as you stated, there would have to be a coupling of the cosmological constant and the zero point field such that one effected the other. Which is ironic as some recent studies have posited that the speed of light may not have been as constant in the past as it's supposed to have been. It may have been a tad slower, and it might become faster in the future. But it's still early days yet before they can confirm or deny this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted Yes. Extrapolating backwards in time based on observation and theory and arriving at the Bang doesn't depend on being able to say what made it go bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

recent studies have posited that the speed of light may not have been as constant in the past as it's supposed to have been. It may have been a tad slower, and it might become faster in the future

If this idea is true and the speed of light was slower and is gaining speed, then this seems to me to be contrary to the theory that the universe is expanding.

Does the exact speed of light play into this theory as a mitigating point?

Also if the speed of light is increasing then how exactly could this be measured?

What does this do to the Theory of Relativity?

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this idea is true and the speed of light was slower and is gaining speed, then this seems to me to be contrary to the theory that the universe is expanding.

in fact, its quite the opposite. there is energy in empty space which allows light to pass through it. as the universe expands, there is more empty space (the vaccum) for light to travel through. the theory i posted above detais that as space expands the force of the expansion acts on the vaccum of space, by streaching it. in doing so it adds more energy to the vaccum in such a way that the energy value at any point in the vaccum is always the same(which is why 'c' is always constant). It has been proven that the universe's expansion is accellerating, with the accelleration comes more energy. As it speeds up, there may come a point in which the vaccum cannot keep up with the accelleration. the result would be more energy in the vaccum, causing light to move faster. As it speeds up even further, the vaccum may not be able to keep its tension and would implode (so to speak), converting the energy within it to mass (hydrogen the simplest atom).

Also if the speed of light is increasing then how exactly could this be measured?

the same way its been measured in the past

What does this do to the Theory of Relativity?

next to nothing, a little refinement

For more information, try Faster Than the Speed of Light. Used copies are only five bucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.