Poll: The Big bang theory, Do you think its true?

[Maze1125]

I believe the BBT could be possible, but it has a few holes in it. Where did the original particles that "banged" into each other come from?

That's not part of the theory.
That would be like saying Evolution has holes in it because we haven't proven how abiogenesis worked.

Matter has the unique nature of being permanent. Matter can't be created or destroyed, just changed. First lesson we were ever taught in physics.

That's hardly unique, it's true of charge and spin and many other physical properties too.

Keeping that in mind, we have an issue with the Black Holes in space. Matter cannot escape them, so where does it end up? Current physics can't describe a black whole without going into abstracts and imaginary numbers.

Yes, but current physics can't explain how a car engine works without abstracts and imaginary numbers. So that doesn't mean much.

 

[PxDn Ninja]

I believe the BBT could be possible, but it has a few holes in it. Where did the original particles that "banged" into each other come from?

That's not part of the theory.
That would be like saying Evolution has holes in it because we haven't proven how abiogenesis worked.

Matter has the unique nature of being permanent. Matter can't be created or destroyed, just changed. First lesson we were ever taught in physics.

That's hardly unique, it's true of charge and spin and many other physical properties too.

Keeping that in mind, we have an issue with the Black Holes in space. Matter cannot escape them, so where does it end up? Current physics can't describe a black whole without going into abstracts and imaginary numbers.

Yes, but current physics can't explain how a car engine works without abstracts and imaginary numbers. So that doesn't mean much.

I'm going to preface this with: I am not a physicist.

The big bang theory states that the universe started at a singular point at a finite point in time. Something interacted with this point (possibly another particle, as it was taught when I was in school a decade ago) and caused it to explode, sending all the matter in the universe out in all directions.

My problem with that is where did the matter come from? We can say it just existed, and I can buy that, but then the Black Hole issues come up. IF this is a cyclic universe, then black holes are displacing, or destroying, matter. Until this has been answered, I don't see how any theory of a big bang can be proven.

On a side note, modern physics can easily explain how a car engine works without abstracts. imaginary numbers are needed for a few of the expansion formulas and complex torque calculations (which is more part of the drive train). Nonetheless, there are much less complicated things than Black Holes that we DO use abstract mathematics and such to explain, so we have a LONG way to go to solving the black hole issues, and even further to solve the origin of the universe.

Of all the theories I have heard though, the BBT is the most likely, I just think it has some glaring flaws.

 

[Godavari]

The top scientists in the world, who think of concepts that we can't even begin to comprehend as child's play, came to the conclusion that the Big Bang happened.
I'm inclined to believe them.

 

[Pimppeter2]

No, it has to many flaws and doesn't quite make sense

I can take it you have a PhD in General Relativity then?

Has anyone told you that you're really funny?

This isn't the dark ages, I can read.

You don't need a degree in rocket science to know the basics of how rockets work. All you need is a 11th grade physics class.


Believe it or not, they publish things in layman's terms[

So buzz off

 

[mykalwane]

Well the thing I like about the Big Bang theory is that it still doesn't explain how things became stuff. It still says out of nothing something came which agrees with the whole a deity could create something. So in a way the Big Bang theory gives evidence to god, just as string theory gives proof that out of a voice something was created.

No it don't... if the Big Bang created the universe and everything known to us within it today..
Where does God come into play? And aren't climate changes and changing the form of matter, the reason for life on earth and therefore also an effect of the big bang?

sorry for ranting but i just hate that people always have to fit an old white-beard Prick into everything related to the creation of the universe..

...it's baffling enough without him.

Well climate changes has been tossed around enough by multiple people to mean multiple things so not sure what you mean by that.

Now the changing of matter would be vibrating stings that are the atoms of atoms creates the atoms themselves. From that the atoms become such and such. That is the idea behind Sting theory [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/]. I am not saying that there is one god or multiple gods. Just gives evidence for a god. I may be wrong, but I have seen it as proof that science and religion are two parts of understanding the world. Science being the explaining of the things we can explain with religion to explain the things we can't. Now I am not a scientist, I am just coming from a novice point. Then again my thoughts on God started with the movie Oh God! [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076489/] and went on to studying other religions. Just a noivce so I may be wrong, just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Cakes]

Your poll assumes a deity naturally conflicts with the Big Bang Theory, which is ridiculous. Either way, it's about as damn close to the truth as we're probably ever going to get.

 

[brighteye]

Well...
I doubt that there was nothing before the Big Bang, because that breaks physical law. There's a better theory I've heard which states that the universe goes in cycles: Everything is pulled into singularities which eventually merge, & electrostatic repulsion balances out the gravity & you get a Big Bang. Rinse & repeat.

The question is simplified, yes but we are talking about a complex theory here so to save space lets go with the original question.

Space math is something you have to have exactly right, they moved a comma in the programming for one of the mars probes, and instead of mapping the surface for 2 months it just made a big crater.

So when those guys tell me that they believe a theory is sound, i tend to believe them.

The other guys that are talking about everything created in six days,humans were made of clay, we have clothes because of a talking snake and every animal on earth could fit on a boat built by a guy that lived for over 800 years, bring some sort of evidence and we can talk about it.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

well, then what caused the big bang?

 

[Acier]

When our parents were in school they were saying the earther was going to stop spinning and we were going to die a cold slow death, and everyone bought that.

I personally, at this point believe the BBT, but saying it's absolute is silly, seeing as our technology can be crude coming up with this stuff, is it the absolute truth? Maybe. But I would be surprised that when our kids are in school some new theory is being taught.

Also, your poll seems a bit aggressive to religious types for no reason. Seeing as how the BBT is Vatican approved

 

[r0qu3]

Well the thing I like about the Big Bang theory is that it still doesn't explain how things became stuff. It still says out of nothing something came which agrees with the whole a deity could create something. So in a way the Big Bang theory gives evidence to god, just as string theory gives proof that out of a voice something was created.

No it don't... if the Big Bang created the universe and everything known to us within it today..
Where does God come into play? And aren't climate changes and changing the form of matter, the reason for life on earth and therefore also an effect of the big bang?

sorry for ranting but i just hate that people always have to fit an old white-beard Prick into everything related to the creation of the universe..

...it's baffling enough without him.

Well climate changes has been tossed around enough by multiple people to mean multiple things so not sure what you mean by that.

Now the changing of matter would be vibrating stings that are the atoms of atoms creates the atoms themselves. From that the atoms become such and such. That is the idea behind Sting theory [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/]. I am not saying that there is one god or multiple gods. Just gives evidence for a god. I may be wrong, but I have seen it as proof that science and religion are two parts of understanding the world. Science being the explaining of the things we can explain with religion to explain the things we can't. Now I am not a scientist, I am just coming from a novice point. Then again my thoughts on God started with the movie Oh God! [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076489/] and went on to studying other religions. Just a noivce so I may be wrong, just my opinion on the matter.

okay i don't want to offend your beliefs but whats wrong with the unexplained actually being
unexplained?

that's my point of view. It means study harder and learn more to get the amount of unexplained getting smaller...no need to bring religion in.

But to not take this any further, i respect your views. And i don't feel in the position to tell you anything about what to think...

 

[Kubanator]

No I didn't. Not even a little bit. What I am saying is that trying to unravel something as vast and complex as everything in the universe can't be done with a few telescopes and a bit of superglue. Understand?

Then, just as the monkey does, we grow, and evolve, and eventually build the Boeing. Hence, if there is a god, we will become gods. Otherwise we'll become near gods.

Ever seen one of these quantum fluctuations? Got any prove? Any evidence? If it is intangible, it doesn't exist.

I was saying that god is intangible. And really. Quantum fluctuation are a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It's been observed. A lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

 

[Lullabye]

*Waves Creation flag around*

*Ducks and waits for the missiles*

Dont worry, we all know that the flying spaghetti monster created all.

*Laughs in a a slightly strained manner at hearing the same joke yet another time.*

Too be honest theses debates are beginning to bore me. I believe in God therefore Creation. A lot of people don't believe in God therefore don't believe in creation. My argument against your joke therefore runs as follows:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" Genesis 1v1.

And by God I mean a holy, righteous, perfect, unchangable, loving, judging, all powerful, almighty, all knowing spiritual being that far transcends our feeble intelligence.

That's not an argument. You simply stating things that can't be proven as fact. Give a logical explaination and I'll concede.also, if "god" is beyond understanding, then how do you know its any of those things? I just love the contradictory, it's like your ruining your own "argument". Feel free to believe though, just be a good person and you should be well off enough.

 

[GamerPhate]

It is possible, but then again, it is about as possible to believe as the one about there being an invisible imaginary friend that helps you live forever. And if you talk to yourself, he can hear you, and magically makes things happen! Oh wait.. sorry I was getting theory and logic confused with belief and religion.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

That's easily explained by random fluctuations in the early universe. There are universes that travel away from us faster than they "should" too.

If everything moved uniformly, that'd be more of a proof of an intelligent designer than the Big Bang.

Disagree on the uniform expansion = intelligent design. Yet the equations used by Hubble point to a constant rate of acceleration, dependent on the distant from the center of the universe the galaxy is. Lets say the anomalies are some random fluctuations then what other effects could these fluctuations cause on the universe? If they are so powerful to break the constant movement of a galaxy then they could very well have effected all our observational data in some way and the whole lot would have to be revived once we know more about these fluctuations.

And, as I explained before, that's nonsense. Better observations have never disproved something.

The earth must be flat, and the center of the universe and all that other crap we like making fun of. All these where created from observations that, until we had better ways to observe the universe around us, where 'proven correct.' You might say 'well that is old, nonsense' but it was made by observational data that was inaccurate due to the limitations of those doing the observations. They couldn't fathom what new ways to observe the natural world around us would exist in the future, just like we can't fathom the very same. So who knows what 'facts' we believe so greatly in today would be disproved by tomorrow.

IT isn't just in ancient times either, even modern times theories have been rewritten cause new data has been observed. Biology is probably the biggest field that comes to mind where things have been revived so much, thanks to poor observational data at the start. Physics isn't immune though, the first that comes to mind is Newtons theory of gravity which has replaced with Einstein work on the matter.

It is a normal process of science, and as I said the beauty in it cause it means we always pursue knowledge instead of sitting back and assuming we know everything.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

The big bang theory would not exist if it doesn't explain blue shifted galaxies. Is it not possible that we are moving slower than Andromeda, and Andromeda is catching up? Or Andromeda is further out, and we are moving faster?

Hubble, one of the leading researches in astrology on whom work the big bang is based greatly around, formulated a set of equations that govern the movement of galaxies. Under this formula it is imposable for a galaxy closer to the center of the universe to catch up or accelerate past one further away. The further away from the center a galaxy moves the faster that galaxy accelerates.

As I said, doesn't disprove the big bang theory but is another little question to be raised about how accurate the data is. There are puzzle pieces missing here, to be found at a later date when we have better understanding and observational data.

 

[Maze1125]

Of all the theories I have heard though, the BBT is the most likely, I just think it has some glaring flaws.

As you said, you're not a physicist, so why do you feel justified in making such a claim?

Believe it or not, they publish things in layman's terms

No, they don't.
The things that get published in layman's terms are nice analogies which, although being reasonably close to the actual theory, are fundamentally different.

Every single problem that someone has brought up in this thread comes down to them thinking that a layman explanation is the actual truth.

 

[Maze1125]

That's easily explained by random fluctuations in the early universe. There are universes that travel away from us faster than they "should" too.

If everything moved uniformly, that'd be more of a proof of an intelligent designer than the Big Bang.

Disagree on the uniform expansion = intelligent design. Yet the equations used by Hubble point to a constant rate of acceleration, dependent on the distant from the center of the universe the galaxy is. Lets say the anomalies are some random fluctuations then what other effects could these fluctuations cause on the universe? If they are so powerful to break the constant movement of a galaxy then they could very well have effected all our observational data in some way and the whole lot would have to be revived once we know more about these fluctuations.

What are you talking about?
The early universe was maelstrom of extremely dense matter at extremely high temperatures. A simple understanding of probability and statistics would tell to that such a situation would produce wild variation across the board.

The fact that almost all galaxies conform very closely to their predicted expansions rates rather than going every which way, despite how violently each would have been shaken about in their infancy, is a testament to how strong the expansion of the universe is.

And, as I explained before, that's nonsense. Better observations have never disproved something.

The earth must be flat, and the center of the universe and all that other crap we like making fun of. All these where created from observations that, until we had better ways to observe the universe around us, where 'proven correct.'

Those were never scientific explanations.
In fact, essentially every scholar throughout history has known that the world was round.

Biology is probably the biggest field that comes to mind where things have been revived so much, thanks to poor observational data at the start.

Yes, biology has had times when a more precise observation has caused huge revelation, but we were talking about physics.

Physics isn't immune though, the first that comes to mind is Newtons theory of gravity which has replaced with Einstein work on the matter.

That is the perfect example of my point.
Gravity exists, the idea of denying it is absurd. We made measurements and deduced how gravity worked. Later we made more precise measurements and found it didn't quite hold, a new theory was later formulated producing further clarification.

But at no point was gravity proven not to exist. All that happened was that it was explained better. (In fact, the old theory was never truly discredited, as it is still a perfectly good approximation that many still use today.)

The universe is expanding, the universe has always been expanding, it started off very very small and it is now very very large, we know this. Yes, we might have gotten the reason for this completely wrong but, whatever the reason, it happened.

To deny it, you would have to deny almost every fundamental physical theory we have, including gravity and electromagnetism.

 

[quiet_samurai]

I believe it to be a very accurate theory. However I don't think that it answers everything about the universe. I believe there are alot of things out ther were will not know for a very long time... if ever.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Believe it or not, they publish things in layman's terms

No, they don't.
The things that get published in layman's terms are nice analogies which, although being reasonably close to the actual theory, are fundamentally different.

Every single problem that someone has brought up in this thread comes down to them thinking that a layman explanation is the actual truth.

Okay then.

What am I supposed to do. Believe in it just because they tell me to? What I have read about the Big Bang has no fully convinced me that it is indeed how the world was created. It could be on the right track, but it is not a perfect theory. So if its their fault that they can't explain it to me, Im not just going to believe them because they say so.

Should I put faith in them?

 

[Maze1125]

Believe it or not, they publish things in layman's terms

No, they don't.
The things that get published in layman's terms are nice analogies which, although being reasonably close to the actual theory, are fundamentally different.

Every single problem that someone has brought up in this thread comes down to them thinking that a layman explanation is the actual truth.

Okay then.

What am I supposed to do. Believe in it just because they tell me to? What I have read about the Big Bang has no fully convinced me that it is indeed how the world was created. It could be on the right track, but it is not a perfect theory. So if its their fault that they can't explain it to me, Im not just going to believe them because they say so.

Should I put faith in them?

No, you should recognise you do not have enough knowledge in the area to make a judgement, and therefore have no place making such claims as "it has to many flaws and doesn't quite make sense" rather than "I don't understand it enough make sense of it."

Although I would also argue that scientists have proven themselves enough times throughout history that you can justifiably trust them without fully understanding why they claim something to be true. But that's a different argument.