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

[Skeleon]

there is no proof of any other universes and it is a simple pure fact that matter and/or energy cannot be dystroyed, only change form. it is IMPOSSIBLE for matter to suddenly come out of nowhere.

Look up the theory of a universe from quantum fluctuations.
Matter could come from nothing, as long as the sum of energy within the system remains zero.
That's how I understood it at least.

 

[Smudge91]

From what i understand of the theory then i think its true so far as another theory which is able to falsify it then i'll go along with the bing bang. After all, we can only have probability, its pratically impossible to be 100% certain.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

it's probably not exact, in my opinion it was more likely a very long process than an instantaneous one. then again, I'm not a scientist, but that just seems more likely to me. Plus there's always a possibility that the universe had no beginning.

 

[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.

 

[Crunchynut]

In the light of the finite speed of light objects that are X lightyears away must of course be X years old.

Not sure if this is a bad question or not... I'm no science pro, not in the least but,

What is the source of the light used to determine the age of bodies found, the "Centre of the Universe"? Or something else?

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

To take a break from that other tread I've been in for the last 3 hours, I'd say that since in 100 years we will have made a lot of new scientific discoveries, I'm pretty sure our theory about how the universe was created will have changed. A lot.

 

[Zacharine]

By saying Time didn't exist before the universe is saying that time IS relative and has meaning.

I see no contradiction. Time is relative, it is a fact we have shown by experimentation to be true. The GPS system stands as practical application of time being relative. Accuracy down the the few meters that we have today would be impossible without Einsteins equations.

But what you mean by 'time has meaning' I have no idea of. Time is a property of space. It has no inherent meaning. In order for something to have meaning there must be a thinking mind that defines the meaning.

Then when you said the universe continued to cool down further After a few hundred thousand years seems wrong to me. I'd say more like a few Million to a Hundred million years.

Quotes? Proof? Evidence? Or is it just a gut feeling?

For example,

Ivanchik, A.V.; Potekhin, A.Y.; Varshalovich, D.A. (1999). "The Fine-Structure Constant: A New Observational Limit on Its Cosmological Variation and Some Theoretical Consequences". Astronomy and Astrophysics 343: 459.

states that according to their calculations, it took the universe 379 000 years to cool enough for atomic matter to form. Several other sources agree.

But to say this is the way matter acts is to say matter acts on its own.

To say matter acts on it's own is to imply that matter has some kind of will. Incorrect. Matter is matter and is subject to physical laws of the universe. The very nature of the universe dictates how matter behaves.

To say this compression of all matter was "Natural" (i'm using it Loosely) is to say that there was no divine hand in this.

And at what point did I deny the possible presense of divinity in this chain of events?

All the Big Bang theory states is that a divinity is, strictly speaking, not required once the initial state of Time = 0 has been achieved. Loosely interpreted, the theory states that 'if a god did it, this is how he/she/it did it'. But the theory itself neither presupposes nor denies the existance of a god figure.

If we took everything on earth including the earth itself and broke it down to its prime elements then compressed it could we get it down to the size of a Needle tip or smaller?

Easily. You see, matter is extremely loose. On a hydrogen atom, if the proton nucleus was the size of a grape, the electron would be a few hundred meters out. Now, such a mixture of matter and energy packed so densely would be extremely hot, possibly so much that matter would in fact break down and be converted to energy. And since there isn't an upper limit to possible temperature, you could compress that point of matter further and further. This would simply result in more and more matter being converted into energy and the temperature of the point rising extremely rapidly. You could even compress it all into the smallest possible lenght (Planck Lenght, cubed.) As in 1.616252(81)×10^−35 meters, cubed. Normally, the largest amount of energy that can be contained in this volume is around 1x10^-6 grams worth. Since Earth weighs quite a lot more than that, the matter would collapse upon itself, forming a black hole.

But nothing in physics makes it impossible. So yes, we could collapse and compress Earth into a tiny, tiny volume.

Maybe a Single Molecule or atom. When we have problems making Hydrogen Helium and oxygen and compacting them to fit in a Tank of compressed gas.

This is a problem of machinery and energy. Example, we haven't even harnessed the power of the sun. Every second the sun lets loose more energy than what humanity has used up to this point troughout it's entire history. Our failiure to reproduce something does not make it impossible; it simply points to our current limitations.

Seems a little "chaotic" to me.

Opinions are of no worth in matters of science.

To say this is how it happened and is definite without having 100% feasible knowledge of the event seems loose to me

As I said before in another post, in science all knowledge is provisional. That is why we call explanations 'theories' instead of 'truths'. But theories are constructed from facts, and we know for a fact quite a lot of things.

Understand, in science nothing can be definitively proven, only disproven. Like...say sun rising from the east. That is 'simply a theory'. One day we just might see sun rise from the west, thus invalidating it. Knowing what we know of Earth's rotation it is quite unlikely, but since we cannot know the future we can never fully discount the possibility.

That is the way it is with the Big Bang theory. Some day, we might find something that disproves the theory. But that would not make the facts disappear, it would simple mean we would need a new explanation for them. And certainly, anyone can suggest a better theory to explain the facts, thus replacing the Big Bang theory. But no one has yet managed this and it simply shows how well the Big bang theory fits the available data.

And as anyone with half a brain knows Matter Cannot be created OR destroyed only altered. If thats true then We have the same amount of Hydrogen and helium as we did in the start.

No, we have roughly the same amount of total energy as what we began with. Hydrogen is one from of expression that energy takes, as is all matter for that fact.

So then we have to address the fact that all this expansion of the universe is not really expanding and all that emptiness is just that.

Non Sequitur. Just because the total amount of energy in the universe is roughly set, does not meant that energy cannot be compressed, diluted or spread out. Universe expands, hence only the average density of matter and energy becomes lower and lower. Eventually, at the Heat Death of universe around 100 trillion years from now, the average density will be only differentially larger than zero. As in, one infinitely small amount above zero. But since at that point space will have expanded a whole freaking lot more, it isn't that unexpected. You see, by that point the last black holes will have evaporated, matter itself will have decayed and so forth.

Also as an F-Y-I, according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, empty space does not in fact exist as such. The closer the known the matter content of a volume, the less accurately we know the energy content. Hence, a volume of space that we know to be empty of matter, would definately have non-zero energy content. And additionally since the laws of physics are perfectly fine with small amounts of energy being spontaneously created from nothing (the max being 1x10^-6 grams for 10^-43 seconds), the very fact that space exists there would make the volume non-empty. This stands at the core of Hawkings Radiation concept: A pair of virtual particles (particle and anti-particle) is created, locally creating a concentration of mass and energy. But the total content would be unchanged.

As for energy its just vibration on a atomic/subatomic level or Ionized atoms.

Incorrect. Energy is the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems.

 

[Kubanator]

By saying Time didn't exist before the universe is saying that time IS relative and has meaning.

It's not that it didn't exist, it's that it's irrelevant if it existed.

Then when you said the universe continued to cool down further After a few hundred thousand years seems wrong to me. I'd say more like a few Million to a Hundred million years.

I'd say it was more like five minutes.

But to say this is the way matter acts is to say matter acts on its own. To say this compression of all matter was "Natural" (i'm using it Loosely) is to say that there was no divine hand in this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Singularity

Singularities are created all the time by gravity...

If we took everything on earth including the earth itself and broke it down to its prime elements then compressed it could we get it down to the size of a Needle tip or smaller? Maybe a Single Molecule or atom.

It would explode due to the MASSIVE electromagnetic forces.

When we have problems making Hydrogen Helium and oxygen and compacting them to fit in a Tank of compressed gas. Seems a little "chaotic" to me. To say this is how it happened and is definite without having 100% feasible knowledge of the event seems loose to me.

We don't have 100% feasible knowledge of anything. But if you accept that gravity is true, and if you accept that electromagnetism is true, then unless you have evidence to the contrary, the big bang is true.

And as anyone with half a brain knows Matter Cannot be created OR destroyed only altered. If thats true then We have the same amount of Hydrogen and helium as we did in the start.

As another intellectual posted, matter and energy can be spontaneously generated.

So then we have to address the fact that all this expansion of the universe is not really expanding and all that emptiness is just that. Empty Space. Not sure if you understood what i said. I'm tired and its not all there i think. But the Basis is if you take all "Energy" and Matter and break it down to its basics then compress it now it will make the exact same size as it was in the big bang. as for energy its just vibration on a atomic/subatomic level or Ionized atoms. But i rant and will refine this tomorrow lol. night.

It is expanding. And yes, that should be true, if the conservation of mass and energy hold true.

[And since the laws of physics are perfectly fine with small amounts of energy being spontaneously created from nothing (the max being 1x10^-6 grams for 10^-43 seconds), the very fact that space exists there would make the volume non-empty. This stand s at the core of Hawkings Radiation concept.

There's no max. If 10^-6 grams can be created, then 2 10^-6 grams can eb created in the same spot. Or 4. Or infinite. It just becomes more unlikely.

 

[Zacharine]

[And since the laws of physics are perfectly fine with small amounts of energy being spontaneously created from nothing (the max being 1x10^-6 grams for 10^-43 seconds), the very fact that space exists there would make the volume non-empty. This stand s at the core of Hawkings Radiation concept.

There's no max. If 10^-6 grams can be created, then 2 10^-6 grams can eb created in the same spot. Or 4. Or infinite. It just becomes more unlikely.

True. But if more than that amount of energy is created within a Planck Lenght volume, it immediately collapses unto itself and becomes a black hole. A short lived one.

But yes, nothing strictly speaking is limiting the amount of matter/energy that can be spontaneously created.

 

[Kubanator]

[And since the laws of physics are perfectly fine with small amounts of energy being spontaneously created from nothing (the max being 1x10^-6 grams for 10^-43 seconds), the very fact that space exists there would make the volume non-empty. This stand s at the core of Hawkings Radiation concept.

There's no max. If 10^-6 grams can be created, then 2 10^-6 grams can eb created in the same spot. Or 4. Or infinite. It just becomes more unlikely.

True. But if more than that amount of energy is created within a Planck Lenght volume, it immediately collapses unto itself and becomes a black hole. A short lived one.

But yes, nothing strictly speaking is limiting the amount of matter/energy that can be spontaneously created.

It doesn't really change much, except for one thing. If an very large amount of matter were to be generated at that point, there would be a singularity. Like the big bang. Meaning the universe could exist out of nothing, and disappear into nothing.

 

[Zacharine]

[And since the laws of physics are perfectly fine with small amounts of energy being spontaneously created from nothing (the max being 1x10^-6 grams for 10^-43 seconds), the very fact that space exists there would make the volume non-empty. This stand s at the core of Hawkings Radiation concept.

There's no max. If 10^-6 grams can be created, then 2 10^-6 grams can eb created in the same spot. Or 4. Or infinite. It just becomes more unlikely.

True. But if more than that amount of energy is created within a Planck Lenght volume, it immediately collapses unto itself and becomes a black hole. A short lived one.

But yes, nothing strictly speaking is limiting the amount of matter/energy that can be spontaneously created.

It doesn't really change much, except for one thing. If an very large amount of matter were to be generated at that point, there would be a singularity. Like the big bang. Meaning the universe could exist out of nothing, and disappear into nothing.

True in a way. It could also do a whole lot of other things as well. But that is our limitation of not being able to gather data from within a singularity. Makes it kind of hard to say what happens within one.

And I shrudder to think of the consequences such an event would have to the nearby space in it happening in. Thank Ctulhu the spontaneous creation of sufficient amount of mass to make a difference on a stellar scale is so unlikely as to be called impossible in laymans terms.

 

[sramota]

Science isn't about belief, nor truth, so this question is fairly irrelevant in any setting.

 

[Snotnarok]

The problem with the "collapse" theory is that they see that the galaxies are actually speeding up rather than slowing down. Even if they were to pull back many scientists are estimating that matter will have begun breaking down by then so there wouldn't be any "great collapse".

 

[kiwisushi]

Gravity is a pretty interesting thing, supposedly modern thinking is that it is "leaked" between the 11th Dimension intertwining with our 3 dimensional matter. The possibility is that all matter exists on all dimensional planes but just can't be viewed in any way other than maths. This is one of the basic principles of the superstring theory (M-Theory). The other regards the actual big bang itself being a collision of branes within multidimensional space, which leads to the possibility of multiple universes. Hopefully I will be able to understand this a little more after reading up on it.

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

yep, haven't heard any more plausible theories. makes sense to me.

 

[The Hairminator]

Since I'm not a scientist I don't really feel that I should have an opinion in this, or I would make a fool out of myself.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

You need an 'other' option. As in, I'll believe something when it's proven. Since it can't be proven, it can just be another theory. I won't just say it's wrong, because I'm not arrogant enough to assume I have special access to an idea no one else has ever considered, I'm not religious, so I don't believe in deity etc, but I'm not a scientist, so I wouldn't know if it's even on the right track.

So yeah, other.

 

[Antari]

You can always just hit youtube and start searching for science programs that explain all this instead of listening to what people remember from classrooms. There is a great deal available on the subject.