Big Bang versus No Beginning and No End.... What is the lates

[Grandpa Dave]

Big Bang versus No Beginning and No End... What is the latest chatter on this subject? See discussions under references below. Creation says... "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth"... But science points to much more pertaining to the heaven or the universe. The Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago +/- a few 100-million years or so...

I'm new here so let me know if this is the wrong place to start this thread. G-pa Dave

References: 1) https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/vr-ar-big-bang-model-virtual-reality-simulation.864960/
2) http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
3)http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...suggests-universe-has-no-beginning-no-end.htm

 

[rootone]

As far as all the evidence goes, everything points to the formation of the solar system, and shortly thereafter, the Earth, to be as you said, about 4.5 billion years ago.
The big bang theory has nothing to say specifically about the Earth, it suggests that the entire observable Universe is about 14 billion years old, and there is another different lot of evidence which supports that as well.

 

[Drakkith]

Big Bang versus No Beginning and No End... What is the latest chatter on this subject?

Hi Dave,

If you haven't already, I'd give this article a read. It explains most of the basics of the big bang theory and has links to other related articles. The big bang theory is extremely well supported and is accepted by essentially all modern astronomers and cosmologists. While there is certainly ongoing research regarding the very early universe and the ultimate fate of the universe, this has little effect on the big bang theory as it pertains to the universe over the last 13 billion years.

 

[PeterDonis]

No Beginning and No End

This hypothesis does not contradict the Big Bang; it is one way of extending the Big Bang model to cover times earlier than the early hot, dense state that is called the "Big Bang". All the talk about an "initial singularity" in the Big Bang model in the Tech Times article is incorrect (the sort of incorrect that is typical of a pop science article). The actual Big Bang model does not have an initial singularity in it. That is an artifact of one particular GR solution; it is not a feature of the actual model used by cosmologists.

 

[Grandpa Dave]

Can't grasp the Big Bang and I can't grasp Creation that says "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth."
Now, at least I can grasp that there was no beginning and that there will be no end where time does not have a meaning.
Are there some experts on this site?

 

[Chronos]

Dave, you should get into the habit of avoiding pop sci articles as a reference sources. They are considered inappropriate here. For example, the article you mentioned from TechTimes should be replaced by something like; http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093, Cosmology from quantum potential, because even a garden variety crackpot [and sometimes a well known scientist] can dupe a mass media publisher into printing unfounded blather, whereas a peer reviewed journal at least shows the author has some skin in the game.

 

[1oldman2]

Are there some experts on this site?

You have come to the right place.

 

[Grandpa Dave]

You have come to the right place.

Thanks!

 

[PeterDonis]

Can't grasp the Big Bang

Have you read the Wikipedia article that Drakkith linked to? Another good source is Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial and FAQ:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

If you have questions about specific items after reading these, feel free to start a new thread. But just saying "I can't grasp it, so I dismiss it" is not a suitable basis for discussion here.

I can't grasp Creation that says "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth."

This isn't a scientific theory anyway, so it's off topic here.

Now, at least I can grasp that there was no beginning and that there will be no end where time does not have a meaning.

As has already been noted, this is a hypothesis, not a known fact.

Are there some experts on this site?

There are plenty, some of whom are responding in this thread. Please bear in mind the PF rules about civility.

 

[Grandpa Dave]

Thanks for your answers.

Oh, just because I said I can't grasp the Big Bang means that I dismiss it... those are your words. You made an assumption. I'm interested in the subject of cosmology and I apparently need to look further and elsewhere.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

The current understanding is that the universe had a beginning. There is a vast amount of cosmological evidence to suggest that the universe started at a quantum scale, rapidly expanding, then slowly expanding ever since. There's a background radiation which is the afterglow of the big bang that was discovered to be exactly what the theory of the big bang predicted. Experiments are currently searching for the space-time ripples from the initial expansion.

The understanding of the future is less certain, but there are a few likely scenarios: The universe will expand forever, faster and faster and cool and decay to absolute zero. There is something unseen pushing the universe apart, once that's understood, we'll likely have a better understanding of the deep future. It may do something that can only be described as a pop: the universe will jump to a new quantum state and new physics will take over.

 

[rootone]

Thanks for your answers.

Oh, just because I said I can't grasp the Big Bang means that I dismiss it... those are your words. You made an assumption. I'm interested in the subject of cosmology and I apparently need to look further and elsewhere.

Enjoy your investigations, but do be aware that there is a load of hokum out there as well as genuine science.
For example I recently stumbled upon a blog which suggested such as that the big bang theory is a proof of re-incarnation.
If it sounds like nonsense it probably is, you can always come here to find out what is or is not acceptable mainstream scientific theories.

 

[Grandpa Dave]

Enjoy your investigations, but do be aware that there is a load of hokum out there as well as genuine science.
For example I recently stumbled upon a blog which suggested such as that the big bang theory is a proof of re-incarnation.
If it sounds like nonsense it probably is, you can always come here to find out what is or is not acceptable mainstream scientific theories.

Thanks for the feedback.