Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Big Bang Debate!

  1. Mar 23, 2003 #1
    This was in PF version 2.

    These questions were discussed and will or probably will be discussed in this topic.

    Did it happen?

    How did it happen?

    How can we tell if it did or didn't happen?

    When did it happen? (and no saying "when the universe was created")
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 23, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    Let me sum this up :
    BB ?

    Seriously though :
    1. Probably, BUT I do not support the out of
    "nothing" hypothesys. So, it's not the "simple"
    version in my opinion.
    2. Fast ?
    Really though, I have no idea. Do you ? :wink:
    3. Through "boring" science projects ?
    4. About 13.7 billion Earth solar cycles ago according
    to the recent CMBR measurements which are
    said to provide great accuracy (that is, a mistake
    factor of only 100-150 million years if I remember
    the articles correctly.)

    Live long and prosper.
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2003
  4. Mar 23, 2003 #3
    The actual CMBR was well below the predicted figure and the usual "adjustments" had to be made to bring the figures together.
    These figures take us back to about 3,000 light years after BB. So we are relying on a period "when the laws of physics did not work" in order to cover the first few seconds.
    Add to this the question "what caused the BB?" and you should begin to realise that once again we have either to believe in magic or abandon the concept and start looking for something a little more believable.
    This is the sort of questionable theory that brings Relativity and Quantum physics into disrepute in the opinion of other branches of science, who are not prepared to accept that the unbelievable or anything beyond comprehension, should be put forward as a scientific theory.
  5. Mar 23, 2003 #4
    Big Bang go bye-bye

    The big bang is impossible for several reasons. For one, general relativity absolutly forbids it. The mass and energy of the emerging universe, as I stated in Impossibilities of the Superstring Theory, would cause it to contract into a 'supercylinder', constantly expanding upwards, with a diameter equal the length the superstring.
  6. Mar 23, 2003 #5
    Also this belongs in the theoretical physics section.
  7. Mar 24, 2003 #6
    Drag- The theory is that it came out of atoms colliding etc.

    I don't support it fully either which led to me making this topic in the old PF and this one.

    No it doesn't. This was in Astronomy and Cosmology back in PF 2 but this is no longer a sub forum to that forum. Probably because you can only have a subforum attached to one forum in this new version. Anyways it was moved here from astronomy in the old PF and it will remain here.
  8. Mar 26, 2003 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Big Bang go bye-bye

    Actually, General Relativity is one of the "theoretical pillars" of Big Bang Theory.
  9. Mar 26, 2003 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually not. According to the theory, there were no atoms at all until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

    The B.B.T. does not have an explanation for the root cause of the event (just an explanation of what has unfolded since the initial starting point).

    In general, Nicool003 initial questions are suited for the A&C forum. However, things like Einstiensqd's post are suited for the Theory Development forum. We can keep an eye on this topic to see how it evolves to see which forum it can reside in.
  10. Mar 27, 2003 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Big Bang go bye-bye

    Wrong, you are talking apples and oranges. There is plenty of evidence for the big bang. So we have to find theories that accomodate the evidence.
  11. Apr 2, 2003 #10
    Sorry evidently I was not thinking when I made the post... I was busy at the time if I remember write. I was typing an essay/report on WWI for History and I wanted to go on PF so I was doing both at the same time Sorry! So guys let's get this started this isnt a "where should this topic be" debate
  12. Apr 4, 2003 #11
    My proposal for what happened before the universe expanded to 300,000 light years is on the Creation page of http://elasticity2,tripod.com [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  13. Apr 4, 2003 #12
    Link not woking try again on
    http://elasticity2.tripod.com/crtn.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  14. Apr 7, 2003 #13
    All these questions become clearer if consider them from such point. It is ñorrect to speak of not begin and the end of universe, but about begin and the end of its next Time Cycle. The final condition after termination of the cycle is initial for the following one. Since of except time and light nothing more does not exist in universe ( all observed by us phenomenas this manifestation of these two), that each cycle begins and ends from the light.
  15. Apr 7, 2003 #14
    well if you want a hypothesis on the idea it did happen,how why and where did the heat come from.if matter was compressed into a single point in a collapsing star.matter could'nt be squashed any more.so gravity instead folded spacetime around the infinite point of matter,gravitationally entrapping the matter and the heat at the heart of the sun.then the sphere of spacetime expanded,the pressure on matter was gone,so it exploded,and the heat is from the super heat matter from the suns center!
  16. Aug 26, 2003 #15
    I could see how that would work with a collapsiong star but how would that work with the big bang? There was nothing in existance before the universe correct?
  17. Aug 27, 2003 #16
    I could see how that would work with a collapsiong star but how would that work with the big bang? There was nothing in existance before the universe correct?

    Are you admitting that you cannot imagine the 'collape Of nothing' as a possible cause of the 'creation of something'? How else can the creation of Zero Points be explained?
  18. Nov 14, 2003 #17
    2 cents worth...

    The big bang is 'beyond' Plank Era.
    The laws of physics fail beyond Plank Era.
    Time does not exist beyond Plank Era.
    Time is a concept, not a reality.

    The Unified Field(as well as electromagnetic, gravity, etc.) are 'below' Plank Scale.
    Time does not exist below Plank Scale.
    Time is a concept.

    Beyond the Event Horizon of a Black Hole, is beyond Plank Scale.

    That which is beyond Plank Scale does not adhere to the concept of time.

    It is Timeless, Eternal.

    It is now.

    The Big Bang is here now, beyond Plank Scale.
    That power sucks Galaxies into Black Holes and disintegrates matter, time, and space.

    It is here at the beginning, it is here now, it is here at the end.

    It is the Unified Field, whose power holds the Universe(or universes) in exquisite balance.

    It is timeless, eternal, and unbounded by space time.

    I am it.
    You are it.
    We are it.

    It is the source and totality of our minds...those same minds which generate the concept of time, space, and seperation, beginning and end.

    Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM"
    off_world_beings say, "Before the big bang, I AM, and there ART THOU"

    The Universe is the Dance of the Lord, the play and display of the wonder that is the Self of your own mind.

    Jai Guru Dev.
  19. Nov 15, 2003 #18
    I do think that time is a reality. In general relativity time is the
    fourth dimension of spacetime, different to the spatial dimensions though
    I do not understand what do you mean here. Can you elaborate?
    Not necessarily. The event horizon of a black hole can have various km. of radius, while the Planck scale is approximately 4*10-35m.
  20. Nov 17, 2003 #19
    Absolutely no big bang

    The universe is a net, mostly because this is the definition of a universe in wich every point (as far as you can come a point)
    is an origo.

    The energy in the universe became small particles, in other words, places the net moves from or against with a spin.

    A large part of the particles have formed homogene ether. The rest formed mass as we know it today.

    Why the universe, seen from every point in it, is just as neverending.

    If a man could be closer to one end of the universe than to another (which ceirtanly is not the case with us), then he would not be able to see the beginning of the universe in one direction by any means (since you also look back in time when you observe distant objects) and in the other direction, hey, this is creepy. Strictly forbidden in physics

    That's an absurd thought.

    It simply does not work.

    Why don't you read The Net Theory?
  21. Nov 18, 2003 #20
    I'm not sure how these replies work, but this is for meteor:

    Time is a 'quality' of another concept called, 'spacetime'.
    Notice the words 'space' and 'time' are conjoined. There is a reason for this.

    Time speeds up and slows down according to the observer.
    For someone being dragged towards or into a black hole(if they could survive any of it) time would slow down for them, until, ultimately they would exist, suspended in time, until the end of the universe...that is...until the end of spactime... or thereabouts.

    The same would be true of someone who was able to travel back in time to the Planck era. The Plank era designates the equivalent of a black hole event horizon(meaning that at some point through the event horizon time and space would disintegrate to 'nothingness' (or 'eternity' depending on your viewpoint)- otherwise it is not a black hole).

    At the Planck scale, here and now, sitting at this computer, your time becomes non-reality. The underlying fields are not bound by space and time, and should exhibit the same quality - regardless of wether one studies them at the begginning of the universe, now , or near the end. They do not change or modify over time, like galaxies or evolution etc. Their characteristics and laws remain unchanged.

    This characteristic is even more true of the unified field, which is theorized as the unification of the 4 fundamental forces of nature, the four fields.

    Thoughts in the brain and the mind itself are epiphenomenon of fluctuating(but not altering or changing) unbounded fields, such as electromagnetic. There are no boundaries in space and time that limit these fields.

    The human brain is essentially a direct result of the quantum wave nature of these fluctuations.
    However, the human brain, having lost the ability to experience this reality, has emphasised boundaries and differences in nature, over its own reality - which is unbounded and beyond the limits of time - timeless. Our sense that time passes, and even history itself, is essentially an illusion, as the field nature of the underlying cosmic consciousness expresses itself in multiple forms and infinite varieties of nature.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook