Big Bang & Genesis

Science & Technology Biosciences
1

Hi:

I would like to know your opinions on this topic.

Scientists and others refute Creationism for may reasons but one of the reasons is that “something from nothing” is contrary to the laws of physics.

Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory and later it was “confirmed” by Hubble. However, at “time zero” or “singularity”, supposedly, the mathematical model that explains the Big Bang theory disintegrates. The mathematical explanation implies that the Big Bang is probable and only that. Probable. IF (I am no mathematician) this is true, at time zero, something came from nothing and create this universe?

IS creationism and Big Bang theory are similar? I am not saying that they are the same but similar.

I am very interested in your thoughts on this.

Q

2

The big bang theory is nothing like creationism. One is an instance of science and the other of faith. In other words, one is based on actual evidence while the other is based on whims.

And the big bang theory is not an example of something coming from nothing, because *something* had to go bang.

3

but what goes bang?

4

Hi:

The big bang theory is nothing like creationism. One is an instance of science and the other of faith. In other words, one is based on actual evidence while the other is based on whims.

Yes, I understand that religion relies on faith. However, as I have asked, at time zero, what happened? The mathematical explanation (I have read) could not answer the question. Before the Big Bang, what was there to create the Big Bang? Without knowing, are we to go on “faith” that there was something that created the Big Bang?

I am interested in your thoughts.

Q

5

“buiq” asked:

“IS creationism and Big Bang theory are similar?”

Yes, and in more ways than the one you mentioned. For instance, the standard Big Bang theory does not say that the universe is expanding into some other part of existence, but rather that the expansion is of space itself. Such a concept is pure nonsense; the universe is … all that is. This creation of space is nothing more than, literally, creation ex nihilo.

The standard Big Bang theory is philosophically and scientifically corrupt on a multitude of levels. It is an attempt to integrate a broad variety of empirical data, data which, by itself, is a monument to the science and technology which has collected such voluminous physical evidence about the cosmos. The problem lies in the proper interpretation of such, and it is there that Big Bang theory fails, miserably.

6

The standard Big Bang theory is philosophically and scientifically corrupt on a multitude of levels. It is an attempt to integrate a broad variety of empirical data, data which, by itself, is a monument to the science and technology which has collected such voluminous physical evidence about the cosmos. The problem lies in the proper interpretation of such, and it is there that Big Bang theory fails, miserably.

Stephen, what is a proper interpretation of said data?

By the way, thank you for all the great posts. I’ve learned a lot!

7

Big Bang doesn’t necessarily say that “the universe” is expanding so much as all matter is becoming more distant from a central point, no one made the impossible statement that “everything” is becoming bigger.

8

By the way, thank you for all the great posts. I’ve learned a lot!

here here!

post-12-1083296578.gif

9

The standard Big Bang theory is philosophically and scientifically corrupt on a multitude of levels. It is an attempt to integrate a broad variety of empirical data, data which, by itself, is a monument to the science and technology which has collected such voluminous physical evidence about the cosmos. The problem lies in the proper interpretation of such, and it is there that Big Bang theory fails, miserably.

Stephen, what is a proper interpretation of said data?

In cosmology I do not have an integrated theory as I do with quantum and relativistic phenomena. Cosmology is the study of the large-scale structure and dynamics of the universe, and to some degree that study is described by general relativity. However, it has become clear that general relativity is not sufficient to account alone for the current glut of observational data. When we observe – as was done not long ago – a coherent structure some 600 million light years across, and some 6.5 billion light years away, and realize that its existence cannot be accounted for so early in the cosmic history of the supposed Big Bang, then we know we are in trouble.

The dynamics of individual galactic structures are better understood, but even there we have the fanciful crutch of so-called dark matter and dark energy which was invented in an attempt to account for what the theory failed to do. Of course, we realize that the notion of the origin of the universe is absurd, but the first and foremost cosmological issue which needs to be unambiguously understood is that of cosmological redshift. There is nothing inherent in the nature of reality that would prohibit galaxies to be receding from each other at high speed, but the explanation of such is certainly something other than spatial expansion.

There is a connection between the interpretation of redshift as the recessional speed of galaxies, and the expanding universe. Regardless of the direction we observe, the shift in the spectrum is essentially the same, so if all galaxies have this same increasing recessional speed with distance, that would imply that we – the Earth – were at the center of the entire cosmos, with everything spreading out from us. To counter this Earth-centered “explosion” the notion of expanding space was posited, so that the expansion would appear uniform for any observer in the universe.

The analogy used is that of an inflating balloon marked with dots on its surface to represent galaxies, and as the balloon surface expands the distance between dots (galaxies) increases uniformly for all dots. Each dot (galaxy) would see expansion outward from itself. So, the recessional velocity inference of spectral shifts led to the notion of an expanding universe. For philosophers and scientists who reject such a universal expansion of space, as I do, it is difficult to accept the recessional velocity inference unless we assume that some sort of explosion caused all of this matter to recede from us, with us at the center of the universe.

But it is important to distinguish between observational fact, and theory. The observational fact is that there exists certain shifts in the spectral lines as measured in the light from the galaxies. That these shifts are interpreted as velocities is an inference based upon a specific theory. There are other (lesser known) theories which interpret the observed red-shift to imply something else other than increasing velocity.

Anyway, there is a great deal of theoretical work yet to be done in cosmology, and, since it is (literally) the furthest removed from out daily experience, it will probably be the last to be addressed, at least from a thoroughly proper perspective.

By the way, thank you for all the great posts. I’ve learned a lot!

You are most welcome. I enjoy these discussions.

10

There are other (lesser known) theories which interpret the observed red-shift to imply something else other than increasing velocity.

Do you know where I could find information on these theories? I had never heard that red shift could be indicative of something other than velocity.

11

Do you know where I could find information on these theories? I had never heard that red shift could be indicative of something other than velocity.

Probably the most mainstream advocate of alternate redshift theory is Irving Segal from MIT. Segal developed his Chronometric Cosmology, and has published many papers in the mainstream journals on his theory. He wrote a book called “Mathematical Cosmology” which has been used in many courses at various universities. Segal died about five years ago, but many of his students carry on his work.

There is a survey paper which lists more than 20 alternative theories:

Ghosh, A. (1991), “Velocity-dependent inertial induction: a possible tired-light mechanism”, Apeiron 9-10, 35-44

I have read proceedings from a Redshift Controversy conference, but I do not have the reference handy.

The problems with most of the “tired light” theories are mostly due to a lack of observed scattering effects. At least one person has developed a theory in which we are awash in a sea of gravitons, and that type of interaction would have neglible scattering effects. One book containing this idea is:

Van Flandern, T. (1993), “Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets”, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley.

I believe there is a more current edition available.

Please note that I am not endorsing any of these theories, nor am I catgorically rejecting redshift-as-velocity. Rather, I am pointing out that redshift is not an “observational” fact (as it is often represented) – it is an inference-- and there is other data which conflicts with the standard view.

Such discrepancies have been published in the literature for decades, and here I list just a few concerns.

  1. Observations of high redshift quasars and low redshift galaxies that are clearly interacting and/or connected, yet have extremely disparate redshifts.

  2. Companion galaxies that have redshifts higher than their parent galaxy. Both in the Local Group and in M81 there are eleven companions and this has been noted for all. Since the companions are orbiting, about half should have been blueshifted, but are not.

  3. Higher redshift quasars have lower measured Faraday rotation than smaller redshift quasars, and the reverse should be true.

  4. Galaxy clusters have been found which have as much as a four magnitude range of dispersion from the standard Hubble diagram relating redshift and brightness.

  5. There is some evidence that redshifts are quantized, which is inconsistent with expected continuity of velocity. This preference for certain discrete values has been observed in a wide range.

These are just some of the concerns with the traditional interpretation of redshift-as-velocity. The most notable objector to the standard view is famed astronomer Halton Arp, who has campaigned against the Big Bang theory for many years. His latest book has a lot of information that can be gleaned by the non-physicist. The reference is:

Arp, Halton. (1999) “Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science”, Apeiron, Canada.

And, again, I am not endorsing any of these alternate theories – all are problematic in my view – but such alternate theories do exist.

12

I have lately been trying to understand how the universe (or, I guess I should say, all of existence) could exist forever. It seems clear that all the matter of the universe didn’t suddenly appear with the big bang 10 billion years ago. But I thought I saw several people on these forums stating that infinity does not exist in physical reality. How, then, could the universe NOT have a magical moment of materialization?

Firstly, if it did have such a moment, what caused that materialization to occur? Such an event violates (I think) the first law of thermodynamics, and moreover, fuels theists to say, “well, there must have been some force to have caused the big bang and the creation of all of existence, so God must be that force.”

Secondarily, if it didn’t have such a moment, and if the universe has always existed, is it not a contradiction for all the matter in the universe to have existed forever and not had some cause? I know that the law of causality says that only actions, and not entities, have causes, but it seems to make so little sense for any amount of matter to have always existed.

Thirdly, even if it’s not metaphysically impossible for the universe to have existed forever, wouldn’t the second law of thermodynamics tell us that the matter and energy contained in the universe would have “petered out”/reached equilibrium by now? If all this matter and energy has been here since infinity ago, how can it still have the energy left to be burning hydrogen with all these planets and stars swimming around and whatnot?

Fourthly, by the law of causality, isn’t it impossible to have an endless causal chain? That’s what an infinite universe would imply. Even after accepting that the matter itself needs no cause, how can the events of the eternal universe have a proper chain of causality if there was no specific “first action”?

13

I have lately been trying to understand how the universe (or, I guess I should say, all of existence) could exist forever.  It seems clear that all the matter of the universe didn’t suddenly appear with the big bang 10 billion years ago.  But I thought I saw several people on these forums stating that infinity does not exist in physical reality.  How, then, could the universe NOT have a magical moment of materialization?

Time is a change of relationship and it therefore depends upon the existence of things that can change. To say that the universe began at some particular time is to step outside of the universe to identify that change. But this is, of course, impossible, since the universe is all that is. So time is in the universe, not outside of it, and the notion of a beginning or an end of time makes no sense. You might enjoy reading an excellent essay on The Unbounded, Finite Universe by Alex. http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/U…nded_Finite.htm

Firstly, if it did have such a moment, what caused that materialization to occur?  Such an event violates (I think) the first law of thermodynamics, and moreover, fuels theists to say, “well, there must have been some force to have caused the big bang and the creation of all of existence, so God must be that force.”

This really is not a issue of physics; it is a philosophical issue and is well-resolved within that realm.

All the rest of your questions are based on the same fallacy of assuming that the universe is in time, rather than that time is in the universe. There is no “forever.”

14

Couple of musings:

0=1-1+2-2+3-3…

Something out of nothing?

Guess its saying 0=infinity, infinite universe came from nothing?

Question: At temperature of absolute zero isn’t there nothing?

Comments on a postcard…

15

0=1-1+2-2+3-3…

Something out of nothing?

Guess its saying 0=infinity, infinite universe came from nothing?

This is just trivial, isn’t it? Additionally, are you trying to suggest that because you can construct an expression of indefinite length, or as arbitrarily long as you’d like, which evaluates to 0, that zero and infinity are necessarily the same thing? How about 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+…=2? Are infinity and two the same thing?

Question: At temperature of absolute zero isn’t there nothing?

No. There has to be something at absolute zero in order for that concept to have any meaning. If there was nothing at absolute zero, what would be at absolute zero? See the problem? And even if the matter within a certain space actually reached absolute zero, which we have no means of achieving or detecting to my knowledge, it would immediately be warmed by its surroundings, the laws of thermodynamics being what they are.

16

“This is just trivial, isn’t it? Additionally, are you trying to suggest that because you can construct an expression of indefinite length, or as arbitrarily long as you’d like, which evaluates to 0, that zero and infinity are necessarily the same thing? How about 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+…=2? Are infinity and two the same thing?”

No, I guess not.

17

Sorry - I should not have posted to this thread. I’m moving my post over to the other discussion on this topic in The origin of the Universe.

18

I have lately been trying to understand how the universe (or, I guess I should say, all of existence) could exist forever. It seems clear that all the matter of the universe didn’t suddenly appear with the big bang 10 billion years ago. But I thought I saw several people on these forums stating that infinity does not exist in physical reality. How, then, could the universe NOT have a magical moment of materialization?

Firstly, if it did have such a moment, what caused that materialization to occur? Such an event violates (I think) the first law of thermodynamics, and moreover, fuels theists to say, “well, there must have been some force to have caused the big bang and the creation of all of existence, so God must be that force.”

Secondarily, if it didn’t have such a moment, and if the universe has always existed, is it not a contradiction for all the matter in the universe to have existed forever and not had some cause? I know that the law of causality says that only actions, and not entities, have causes, but it seems to make so little sense for any amount of matter to have always existed.

Thirdly, even if it’s not metaphysically impossible for the universe to have existed forever, wouldn’t the second law of thermodynamics tell us that the matter and energy contained in the universe would have “petered out”/reached equilibrium by now? If all this matter and energy has been here since infinity ago, how can it still have the energy left to be burning hydrogen with all these planets and stars swimming around and whatnot?

Fourthly, by the law of causality, isn’t it impossible to have an endless causal chain? That’s what an infinite universe would imply. Even after accepting that the matter itself needs no cause, how can the events of the eternal universe have a proper chain of causality if there was no specific “first action”?

The problem with saying that something stretches out into infinity is that you by definition can never reach infinity.

You ad trillions upon trillions of zero’s behind a one and still have a finite number when you ad one more.

The finite can contain any number of finite things but must have some number of finite things.

Why haven’t we reached something which can not be reached?

To me endlessness and infinity are mutually exclusive as infinity is supposed to be the end of endlessness.

Spherical time may yield the answer to the question of any beginning or end by tying those together to form causation.

And maybe I shouldn’t dive into such abstract cosmology after bed time. :smiley:

19

but what goes bang?

If we knew that, it wouldn’t be a theory anymore :wacko:

Seriously though, that question, what’s at absolute zero, what’s BEYOND whatever exploded out the big bang first, what’s the universe expanding INTO, and all the queries of that nature really have no answers as of yet, only speculation. I’m no mathematician, but as I understand it, when you get down to the almost infinitesimally small subatomic particles and how they behave, the “regular” laws of physics break down and no longer apply, hence the creation of quantum physics, which still doesn’t answer all the questions. Same with absolute zero. Our “laws” of thermodynamics apply less and less the closer we get to reducing something to absolute zero.

Personally I think the answers to these questions are a long way off because of the amounts of energy required to even test the theories. Michio Kaku is pretty good at bringing the subject down to the layman’s level, and a lot of the experiments required to reproduce black holes and open interdimensional space and recreate the conditions before the big bang require trillions of times more energy than is available in our whole galaxy, or something absurd like that.

Still fun to think about though. Personally, I just like looking up at the stars.

20

The only similarity I can imagine is that Adam bangs Eve in Genesis, resulting in their many children who proceed to begin incestuously banging each other.