Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

The Origin Of The Universe


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 locally pwned

locally pwned

  • Members
  • 489 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Local time:03:39 PM

Posted 23 May 2006 - 07:28 AM

Currently there are many threads that deal with evolution. What about Big Bang theory? Of all scientific theory, this one should be most open to attack...for there is so much about it that is yet incomplete. Increasing our understanding of cosmology is perhaps even more daunting than finding evidence for evolution, as the only information we get about the universe comes from the most feeble light we collect in giant telescopes.

On the other hand, the timescale is easier to prove. The fact that light travels through a vacuum at exactly one specific speed gives us the basic tool from which to determine the age and size of the universe.

Support for current Big Bang theory:

The universe is expanding. We know this to be true because light from distant galaxies are all shifted toward the red part of the spectrum due to the Doppler effect.

Background noise: the universe is filled with cosmic background radiation. In other words, a (roughly) even amount of radiation is detected in all directions throughout the universe. This is thought to be the remnants of the original Big Bang...though as the universe expands, the wavelength of this initial radiation is stretched out to a very low frequency. But it is there.

So if the universe is expanding, will it ever slow down, or even begin contracting again? Most scientists believe the answer to this question lies in the amount of matter contained in the universe. Below the required amount, the universe would expand forever. Above it, gravitation would slow and finally stop the expansion, and begin the "Big Crunch." Or, if there's just not quite enough mass, the universe will continue to expand forever at a decreasing rate.

The weird thing is, if you took all the observable matter in the universe...all the stars, galaxies, nebulae, ect...you wouldn't have but a small percentage of the matter required to stop the expansion of the universe.

For the record, Big Bang theory does not claim that an explosion "threw" all the material of the current universe into empty space. The Big Bang theory suggest that the universe itself expanded from a central point. But then one naturally asks, "So why was the universe in one point? Why did it expand? What was outside this point before it expanded?"

These questions are far from being answered. In fact the more scientists learn, the stranger and more perplexing the universe turns out to be. There is now evidence that the expansion of the universe is in fact accelerating. There is currently no definite scientific explanation for it.
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." - Douglas Adams

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 WereBo

WereBo

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:London, UK
  • Local time:11:39 PM

Posted 24 May 2006 - 06:45 AM

I can understand and 'feel comfy' with the Big Bang' theory, even the 'Oscillating Universe' theory - Bang! - Expand - Contract - repeat ad infinitum....

The bit that really baffles me, is what are expanding into??? Posted Image...

A chum of mine's pet theory is that the Universe oscillates... We expand 'til we hit the edge, then bounce off back to the centre again :thumbsup: ... A rather good theory, unlikely, but a good theory... It only took 3 pints of Guinness to formulate it too :flowers:

There's still a lot of unanswered questions, and unanswerable ones too :inlove: ... What would happen if, at the maximum point of expansion just as we start to contract, we fired a rocket outwards??? Would the 'Big Bang' happen cos that rocket matter was missing??? Would gravity drag the rocket back to the centre again???

I'd like to arrange my re-incarnation for about 5,000 years time to see how far we've come to answering it :trumpet: ...

Posted Image



Humus hic parumper venatus of militis


#3 Darthy

Darthy

    The red side of the Force


  • Members
  • 1,217 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solar System of Ors
  • Local time:12:39 AM

Posted 24 May 2006 - 08:36 AM

Very good topic locally pwned. :thumbsup:

On the other hand, the timescale is easier to prove. The fact that light travels through a vacuum at exactly one specific speed gives us the basic tool from which to determine the age and size of the universe.


You said very well, the light is a basic tool to determinate the age and size of the visible universe. On the other hand, after Einstein, you know the time is not an independent entity, so the scientific time scaler, in last instance, could be wrong. It is correct, if we saw the Universe, only, by a Newtonian point of view.
Like you, I am a critic about the Big Bang theory and I think, like you said, that it is, at least, an incomplete theory.

Background noise: the universe is filled with cosmic background radiation. In other words, a (roughly) even amount of radiation is detected in all directions throughout the universe. This is thought to be the remnants of the original Big Bang...though as the universe expands, the wavelength of this initial radiation is stretched out to a very low frequency. But it is there.

As you know, on maths we use, very often, the nonsense methode to demonstrate that one thing is correct.
Let's use this method now:
1-Imagine that the Universe had no beginning;
2-Imagine that the Universe allways existed;
3-Imagine that the Big Bang never happened;
If the three above things are true we still would have the so named cosmic background radiation?
I think we would continue to have it, because it is the result of the existence of the Universe Itself no matter how was It's manifestation. ( so difficult, for me, to use the proper words in english!!!)
So the cosmic background radiation, for me, doesn't prove the existence of the Big Bang, it only proves the existence of the Universe Itself.

The weird thing is, if you took all the observable matter in the universe...all the stars, galaxies, nebulae, ect...you wouldn't have but a small percentage of the matter required to stop the expansion of the universe.

Now the scientific community to solve this problem, begins to talk in the "Dark Matter" to compose things in order to have an "oscillating Universe theory", which is preferable to the Big Bang theory. This theory has the name of "Big Bang/Big Crunch".

For the record, Big Bang theory does not claim that an explosion "threw" all the material of the current universe into empty space. The Big Bang theory suggest that the universe itself expanded from a central point. But then one naturally asks, "So why was the universe in one point? Why did it expand? What was outside this point before it expanded?"

The defenders of Big Bang theory say that there was nothing before it, calling to the precise moment of the event "The Singularity" and that's all.
Εν οίδα οτι ουδέν οίδα - Socrates
Thanks John

#4 seafox14

seafox14

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Bossier City, Louisiana
  • Local time:05:39 PM

Posted 24 May 2006 - 06:30 PM

Here is my Big Bang Theory (joke). God said " Let there be light" and BANG!! there was light. :thumbsup:

Seafox14
5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Donít be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world

#5 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!


  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:39 PM

Posted 24 May 2006 - 07:57 PM

I agree seafox14!

#6 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:07:39 PM

Posted 24 May 2006 - 09:47 PM

There are loads of ideas circulating around how existence came into..... existence. There's the bubble theory (about an infinite number of universes), the big bang theory, where there's one universe expanding into infinity, the idea of a universe expanding, then contracting infinitely many times, etc. Those are pretty much the only 3 that i've heard of that are seriously being looked into by science.

The big thing here is that there will probably NEVER be an answer. Much like evolution, all people can do is speculate how it happened based on observations, but it's about 99.9% impossible to PROVE.

#7 seafox14

seafox14

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Bossier City, Louisiana
  • Local time:05:39 PM

Posted 25 May 2006 - 09:08 AM

What I find interesting is that the original goal of science was to figure out how God made the universe and everything, as well as to find out how everything works. This is because the bible does not go into detail on how God made things. That original goal has changed drastically.

As to the origin of the universe? Quite simply put, God made it. How he did it? I don't know. He didn't tell me (in scripture). I look on the science of the Big Bang with some skeptisim. Who knows. it could have been "let there be light "and then bang. Theoretical science is a best guess game. It could also have been a mass of energy that exploded and changed into matter (energy to matter conversion). This ia one of those topics that is going to be a " I think it's this", with supporting evidence and vice versa.

Respectfully
Seafox14

Edited by seafox14, 25 May 2006 - 03:51 PM.

5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Donít be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world

#8 seafox14

seafox14

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Bossier City, Louisiana
  • Local time:05:39 PM

Posted 25 May 2006 - 03:53 PM

Only 2 ways to find out for sure

1) build a time machine and go back and see for ourselves or
2) die and ask God.


Seafox14
5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Donít be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world

#9 Darthy

Darthy

    The red side of the Force


  • Members
  • 1,217 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solar System of Ors
  • Local time:12:39 AM

Posted 25 May 2006 - 07:50 PM

seafox14 Posted Yesterday, 12:30 AM
Here is my Big Bang Theory (joke). God said " Let there be light" and BANG!! there was light.

Seafox14

I like your God very much. :thumbsup: When one thing has no solution, Bang, your God solves everything!!!
What a great GOD (joke).

Regards,

Darthy
Εν οίδα οτι ουδέν οίδα - Socrates
Thanks John

#10 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:06:39 PM

Posted 25 May 2006 - 08:17 PM

" What I find interesting is that the original goal of science was to figure out how God made the universe and everything, as well as to find out how everything works."

The current view in the history of philosophy, after H. Frankfort's writings, is that the earliest scientists (mostly in Ionia, and especially the Milesians at first) were driven by the desire to find a rational answer in the form of natural laws completely outside of myth, dieties, and other superstitions that were the staple of what passed for explanations at the time. Thus the Presokratics began the long treck towards what we today call science; none of these thinkers chose to write apologetics, and in fact rejected the idea that everything in the natural world is produced by random or divine influence. These writers make knowledge universal and not solely the possession of priests, and truths subject to reason and observation instead of dogma.
Regards,
John

Edited by jgweed, 25 May 2006 - 08:49 PM.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#11 locally pwned

locally pwned
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 489 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Local time:03:39 PM

Posted 26 May 2006 - 09:57 AM

So the cosmic background radiation, for me, doesn't prove the existence of the Big Bang, it only proves the existence of the Universe Itself.


I agree with you there. Cosmic background radiation is an observed phenomenon that fits nicely into Big Bang theory...the idea that there should be some residual energy signature from the initial period of expansion and that it should be relatively "cold" as its wavelength has been stretched for billions of years. But it seems plausible that any number of other alternate theories could also include or even predict this radiation.

Now the scientific community to solve this problem, begins to talk in the "Dark Matter" to compose things in order to have an "oscillating Universe theory", which is preferable to the Big Bang theory. This theory has the name of "Big Bang/Big Crunch".


Ahh, dark matter. It would seem that universe must be heavier than its observable matter (ie: stars, nebulae, ect). For example, galaxies behave as if they contain far more mass than can be accounted by their stars and dust. Take an average spiral galaxy...spinning on its axis. The strange thing is that the outer arms rotate at the same speed as the inner ones. This suggests that the structure of the galaxy extends much further than we can visibly detect.

There are many ideas for what dark matter could be; black holes (horrendously massive ones are now thought to exist in the centers of galaxies), neutrinos...almost massless, chargeless particles released by stars that exist in extremely large numbers (the idea is, if they contain even the slightest amount of mass, they would account for a large chunk of the matter in the universe just because of their great numbers).
There is also the possibility of matter that does not have atomic structure as we know it.

The thing is, visible matter only accounts for a small percentage of the mass needed to slow the expansion of the universe.

I look on the science of the Big Bang with some skeptisim. Who knows. it could have been "let there be light "and then bang.



This is actually an interesting bit right here. The bible doesn't seem to distinguish the difference between the creation of the Earth and the creation of the rest of the universe. This is in no way surprising, as the people of that era didn't know that the universe extended much beyond the Earth anyway (and why the Catholic Church accepted Ptolemy's model for so long). So for those who study the bible...would you guess that the universe...the stars, the galaxies, ect...are much older than the Earth? Or would they be included in "let there be light?"

So if the Earth is 6000 "years young," the universe is certainly not, as far-off objects have been relatively accurately placed as far as 13 billion light years away.

Yes, quasars exist so far out they are near the threshold of the visible universe, as Darthy correctly mentioned. According to current theory, there was a point in the early universe when it was still so energetic that electrons moved freely and interfered with the the "free passage" of photons...in effect the early universe was opaque.
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." - Douglas Adams

#12 Darthy

Darthy

    The red side of the Force


  • Members
  • 1,217 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solar System of Ors
  • Local time:12:39 AM

Posted 26 May 2006 - 06:05 PM

Hi john :thumbsup:
I'm afraid my english is not enough to talk with you about the subject you open.
I would love to talk with you about this subject in portuguese, but first I have to understand very well what you mean with the things you had writen. Why they would have the preocupation of writing apologetics? The apologetic thinking is linked to religious thought when you pretend to explain the dieties behavior and the need of their existence through reason. It's logical that those thinkers do not have the preocupation to write apologetics about one thing (science) that doesn't need dieties to explain anything. You wrote: "...and in fact rejected the idea that everything in the natural world is produced by random or divine influence. ...". Of course they want to liberate themselves off the need of dieties to explain everything. I, personally, think that nothing in the Universe is produced by random. Randomize one thing is the product of unacknowledged the law that prevails the phenomena we are studying. Like Einstein, I sure beleive that God, if He exists, doesn't like to play poker. :flowers:
Darthy
Εν οίδα οτι ουδέν οίδα - Socrates
Thanks John

#13 locally pwned

locally pwned
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 489 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Local time:03:39 PM

Posted 30 May 2006 - 06:57 AM

Randomness...

I find it interesting that on the large scale, the universe appears to be smooth and predictable...yet on the quantum scale the opposite is true. Darthy, what's your take on the Uncertainty Principle?



Now to move away from hard science for a moment...why is it that most of us seem to have distaste for disorder? I would venture to say that few of us see the world as completely random. Something "tells" us that there's order in nature. We see patterns in everything. But isn't that the basic function of our brains? We organize, name, arrange, compare...we create order where it does not otherwise exist. This behavior is the basis for conscious thought. So wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that disorder would feel "unnatural?"

From the beginning of civilization we have sought order. From the past to this day we perceive order in the world around us to satisfy this innate desire whether or not such order actually exits.

We do it in our daily lives. Some believe that major events in their lives have some pre-ordained source; others go so far as to claim even that sunny days are "planned" or "provided." But most of us have trouble accepting "fundamental truths," not to mention grievous loss, without some reason, some purpose.

But again, could not this drive to seek order come from within...and in fact be clouding our assessment of reality?
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." - Douglas Adams

#14 seafox14

seafox14

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Bossier City, Louisiana
  • Local time:05:39 PM

Posted 30 May 2006 - 07:34 AM

Three possibilities exist regarding the uncertainty principle.

1) The universe on the quantum level IS truly random and unpredicable.
2) The "randomness or distribution" is not random at all. the pattern may be so large that we have not seen the whole pattern yet.
3) we are all figments of the universes imagination (joke). :thumbsup:

Locally Pawned, what is your take on String Theory

Seafox14
5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Donít be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world

#15 Darthy

Darthy

    The red side of the Force


  • Members
  • 1,217 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solar System of Ors
  • Local time:12:39 AM

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:43 PM

Hi locally pwned

locally pwned Posted May 30 2006, 12:57 PM
I find it interesting that on the large scale, the universe appears to be smooth and predictable...yet on the quantum scale the opposite is true. Darthy, what's your take on the Uncertainty Principle?

What I think about the Uncertainty Principle is that is the best way to study the phenomena on the microcosm scale. By other words, the time constants of macro and microcosm are so different (millions of years to micro and nanoseconds), that we are not able to see and study correctly any phenomena on the quantum scale. There are some particles whose life time is only about some microseconds, or least. We are on a time scale so much larger, that only by random we can study those kind of phenomena.
That's what I think about the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. :thumbsup: However there are some scientists that began to apply the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to the study of multidimensional entities, like Universe itself. If you are interested try to see this site:
Quantum Physics with regard to spirituality :flowers:
Regards,
Darthy
Εν οίδα οτι ουδέν οίδα - Socrates
Thanks John




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users