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 really necessary?

  1. Aug 9, 2004 #1
    Hey, everyone, this is my first thread on this site.

    I was thinking about the big bang. The big bang is noted as an explosion from a primeval atom. When this atom exploded, matter and energy scattered everywhere. From this explsion, space-time itself was created.

    I find it hard to accept this theory. If this atom was said to give offspring to space-time, how could the singularity exist? What came before this singularity? How was it's existance brought up?

    Gravity is an issue that blurs this concept. Gravitational forces get stronger as density increases. The singularity was a non-volumetric point that contained all of the matter (visible and not visible) in our universe today. This gave it finite density. Finite density would lead catastrophic gravitational effects. How could this singularity explode outwards, when the gravitational pull towards it were so great? One might counter this by saying the big bang gave offspring to the four fundamental fources which includes gravity, so there was no gravitational pull towards this singularity. If you counter with that, how was this atom held together, if gravity did not exist.

    These are just a couple of questions I had. If you can answer, I'd be happy. I'm also trying to make a physics site, so your answers would help me out greatly.

    I appreciate your help.

    -employee #416
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 9, 2004 #2
    I happen to think what would be surrounding the singularity prior to the big bang? It would have to be Nothing (colorless, spaceless, timeless)... Infinite, time, space, color, all laws of physics would not exist until after the expansion..What about Multiverses did they have big bangs too? Then where did space come from for these singularities to dwell?
     
  4. Aug 9, 2004 #3
    How can there be nothing? Space is not nothing; space is something. Multiverses are not really proven to exist. Oh, how could this big bang be seated in nothing? There had to have been something to harness it.
     
  5. Aug 9, 2004 #4
    I just need help on this topic, so I can put it on my website. I don't want to put it on there and not fully comprehend it.
     
  6. Aug 9, 2004 #5
    The Big Bang theory is a religion. Its adherents defend it as such. I have had papers that question the big bang theory rejected by reviewers citing that the papers were too dangerous to publish. An idea can only be dangerous to a faith.

    I presently favor the Photon Theory of matter, and the rules of that theory would not permit there to be singularities, and certainly no Big Bang.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2004
  7. Aug 9, 2004 #6
    what do you mean by a primeval atom (you cannot mean a normal atom)?

    If you put a finite amount of mass in a infinitesimal point you get an infinite density.
     
  8. Aug 9, 2004 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If the universe is expanding, then at some time in the past, all matter was at the same point. The universe appears to be expanding. Pretty simple, really.
     
  9. Aug 9, 2004 #8
    i think as well that IF there are black holes in the center of our galaxy then why would not the big bang represent a huge blackhole that never exploded,since gravity would be enormous,how does the primordial mass release it's self?

    and apparently 15 billion years is not enough time for the universe to organize it's self into galaxies and superclusters.

    just some of the arguments i have come across against the big bang theory.
     
  10. Aug 9, 2004 #9

    mee

    User Avatar


    Then where would this point be? And where are we in relationship to it? It would perhaps seem a pretty simple calculation.
     
  11. Aug 9, 2004 #10
    ___________________________________________

    there is no way to tell,thats why there is no definitive calculation done by now.the theory(big bang) is used to explain the universe more out of tradition than being truly a good theory.
     
  12. Aug 9, 2004 #11
    Gravity causes a red shift in the wavelength of light; I wonder what percentage of the observed red shift in the light from distant galaxies is due to gravity taking also into account dark-matter gravity.

    Keep on chuggin !!

    Vern
     
  13. Aug 9, 2004 #12
    ___________________________________________

    according to Halton Arp red shift is the production of matter and that the older, the lesser the red shift,just a perspective!!
     
  14. Aug 9, 2004 #13
    Space itself expanded (and still does!). So the point itself expanded to become our universe. So that point is everywhere!
     
  15. Aug 9, 2004 #14
    ___________________________________________

    so why does not this point cancel it's self? if looking from one point,at the extreme optical range(far)from extreme closeness(us). and thus create a situation of non-expansion.?
     
  16. Aug 9, 2004 #15
    i think the universe is infinite. i wanted to know if anyone else thinks like me.. this is my first post and i'm so EXCITED!!! also.. i don't believe black holes exist.. and i think the whole theory of the big bang is wrong... what does anyone else think???
     
  17. Aug 9, 2004 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If the universe itself is expanding (as opposed to the galaxies moving apart from an explosion), then there is no central point. The Big Bang happened everywhere at once. This is what our observations suggest.
    It very well may be infinite.
    15 years ago, it may have been a matter of belief (or rather, prediction), but today it isn't: several have been found.
     
  18. Aug 9, 2004 #17
    maybe those aren't really black holes... perhaps those "black holes" are just neutron stars spinning really fast. astronomers can't actually "see" what is going on around the vicinity of a suspected "black hole", so who knows what is it they are classifying as a black hole. have they found black holes in between galaxies? i know there are intergalactic stars, so shouldn't there be intergalactic black holes?
     
  19. Aug 9, 2004 #18
    ___________________________________________

    no doubt, the big bang is wrong,there are just to many arguments against,there are many theories and problems that question its validity. i suggest being open to other therories,right or wrong but by piecing together one therory to another i'm sure a better theory will come forth.
     
  20. Aug 9, 2004 #19
    There's the point, that isn't explained.

    The nothing that preceeded it, that isn't explained.

    The nothing it's in, that isn't explained.

    The point and the space expanding into what, that isn't explained.

    The big bang theory, explains less than nothing.

    An infinite universe, both in time and space, means it's always existed and it isn't contained within anything... except time and space.

    But time and space are relative concepts.

    Time needs to start... and space is a lack of something.

    Neither one can exist before something else exists.

    The point... which we can't seem to explain.
     
  21. Aug 9, 2004 #20
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Big Bang really necessary?
  1. Before the 'BIG BANG' (Replies: 1)

  2. Big Bang (Replies: 10)

Loading...