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

The Big Bang Makes No Philosphical Since To Me Help

  1. Jun 27, 2011 #1
    posted this back in 2010 elsewhere

    Now It's a question that's been irking me for a while, I asked here once and never got an answer.

    Just a question of simple logic..


    I take two points in space that are astronomically distant. Important that I Choose 2 stars.


    "Frebel has found one such star in our own Milky Way and dated its birth to 13.2 billion years ago—barely 500 million years after the universe itself was born."

    That's object #1

    Using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have broken the distance limit for galaxies by uncovering a primordial population of never-before-seen ultra-blue galaxies. At 13 billion years old, they formed approximately 600 to 800 million years after the Big Bang

    That's object #2

    If at any two astronomically distant points in space can be equally as old how can one explain an energy force that can move this fast?

    would this energy and force include light?

    I don't care how much closer galaxies were to each other in the beginning, which is also interesting

    still how did the entire universe pop into existence in a matter of "days"?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 28, 2011 #2

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It sounds like you're imagining the Big Bang as an explosion that happened in a preexisting empty space, with matter spreading out from one point. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion within space, it was an explosion of space.
     
  4. Jun 28, 2011 #3

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This question doesn't make any sense to me.

    The star in our Milky Way that is that old is simply a star that has existed for that amount of time, but we see the light that it emitted recently (within thousands of years).

    The galaxy that is far away we see the light that it emitted billions of years ago. We can't determine in enough detail the makeup of the galaxy to say how long it existed before it sent out the light we see now, but we know it is at least old enough to have sent that light.

    So, what is your confusion here?

    Well, the expansion rate early-on was much faster than it is now. The Hubble parameter, which sets the relationship between distance and velocity, has continued to decrease since our universe was born. So early-on, quite a lot happened in a short time.
     
  5. Jun 28, 2011 #4
    that isn't really the nature of the question, since we are talking about stars themselves not space or absence of space.

    Question is how did the big bang happen so fast regardless of how close galaxies were in the beginning. What type of infinite energy, or force could be behind the mechanics of this instantaneous event?

    what is the difference between big bang, and creation method if both occurred in matter of "days"?

    If we cant explain what the force or energy behind this energy is, or how. Do we dare begin to give an age to the universe?
     
  6. Jun 28, 2011 #5

    Well mainly because mainstream science has accepted that the universe is 14 billion years old, and this is the age of the light. So i can safely assume so for the sake of the question and arguement.


    Yes quite a lot did happen in a short amount of time, so short that this happened faster than the speed of light, a lot faster.

    But philosophically, it raises the question if the universe was created in an instant how do we know it is old?

    Because the light took 14 billion years to get here? but if it was created in an instant, and galaxies were once closer, how do we know the same phenomena isnt at play when we age the universe itself?

    ive read up on redshift, but i continuously ask what does it matter when we know there is a force strong enough to create the entire universe in a matter of hours? Make all the observations possible, yet its all about human perception right?
     
  7. Jun 28, 2011 #6

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the speed of light is an absolute local speed limit. Locally, nothing at all happened faster than the speed of light. The relative speeds of objects far away from one another just isn't a well-defined quantity, and as such can have no speed limit.

    Furthermore, everything in the universe today was once in causal contact. There is no need to appeal to faster-than-light travel of information to produce the universe we observe.

    Well, the basic argument here is that if the universe were created instantly yesterday, then events we believe we remember from two days ago couldn't conceivably have any relevance whatsoever to the real world. Those events would have been imaginary, and thus unrelated to reality. So the fact that our memories from two days ago are sensible and can help us to understand the reality we observe today is evidence that the universe is at least that old.

    We gain confidence that the universe is much older still when we look carefully at the data and find that the same laws of physics we see in action here on Earth today can be used to make sense of the early universe 13.7 billion years ago. If the universe weren't that old, then the light we observe from the cosmic microwave background, for instance, would bear no relationship whatsoever to the laws of physics we can test here on Earth. But it does.

    It's not a force that is "out there", but something that can happen under the right conditions given the forces that are active and we can measure right here on Earth. In order to create a new universe like our own, what you need is to create a teeny, tiny region of space, much smaller than a proton, that is dominated by a particular sort of field called an inflaton. From the outside, this will look like a microscopic black hole that instantly evaporates. But from the inside, there will be an entire new universe that could well last as long as ours, and contain just as many stars.
     
  8. Jun 28, 2011 #7

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wait, that isn't true, is it? For example, in an open FRW model with zero cosmological constant, space is infinite, and there are places that are initially not in causal contact.

    I think one of the problems we're having here is that there's a certain amount of technical knowledge and vocabulary that Chalnoth and I are assuming, but you may not have that background. For instance, you've been using "force" and "energy" as synonyms, but they aren't the same thing.

    If by "creation method" you're referring to the biblical account of creation, then please review the rules that you agreed to when you joined:
    If you want to compare the relative merits of two different scientific theories of the origin of the universe, that's fine, but this is not the place to discuss creationism, which is not a scientific theory.
     
  9. Jun 28, 2011 #8
    If i thought force and energy were the same, i would have said force/energy rather than force and energy. Clearly a difference in your most basic physics college class, yet you cant talk about one with you bringing up the other..


    The problem isn't with the scientific model of the universe, but the fact that you guys are great with technicalities yet poor philosophers.

    One college professor told me to also continue researching finds in dark matter in the universe, this may help with my philosophy of cosmology.

    The closest answer ive gotten to my question directly is that perhaps the galaxies were once close enough so that breaking the limit to the speed of light isn't necessary. If i am interpreting him right. But i would agree with you that it wouldn't make much since considering the size of the universe and the age of to completely distant stars.

    I can see some technical differences between a scientific observation, and a shamanistic view of the universe. But philosophically i see non..

    Both are saying the universe popped into existence instantaneously, yet one says it happened 14 billion years ago, the other says a few thousand.

    Well what is truly confusing is how these models conflict in a philosophical view of the phenomena of big bang.

    I've had this conversation in many other forums, yet i see clearly that you guys are not interested in philosophy but the technical observation. I can respect that,yet i can't help but wonder why our perception of the universes are all slightly different even with technicalities regardless of shamanistic or direct observations.

    to this day, both say the universe popped into existence instantaneously. How in the world could this happen? I try to ask the question as simply as possible. and remember I am not concerned with empty space, only tangible space like stars. So I'm not yet concerned about the issue on rather space is infinite or not.

    There is enough tangible space with extreme distances and equal age, to ask the same questions.

    Is there an explanation of what can cause a seemingly limitless amount of stars popping into existence instantaneously?

    I am indeed a philosopher, if you are not good with conversations with philosopher i can understand that, since two worlds cannot always merge
     
  10. Jun 28, 2011 #9

    bcrowell

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, you can. Newton went to his grave without ever hearing about anything called energy.

    Philosophy is a very technical field. One of the hallmarks of good philosophers is that they are careful with definitions. So far in this discussion one of the main problems is that you have not made careful distinctions.

    Here you seem to be under the impression that there is a scientific problem with cosmological models "breaking the limit to the speed of light." There is no such problem. If it seems that way to you, we can try to help you resolve your confusion, but you will have to submit yourself to the scientific discipline of using careful definitions are careful logic, rather than disdaining such care as "technical."

    This could be an interesting discussion, but it is off topic for the cosmology forum. If you want to discuss the sociology of science, PF's philosophy forum might be more appropriate: https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=112

    Here we are back to the problem that has kept cropping up in this thread, which is that you keep introducing code words from young-earth creationism, under the guise of wanting to discuss science or philosophy. The idea that the universe is a few thousand years old is not an idea associated with shamanism, it is an idea associated with young-earth creationism, which is a particular belief system related to fundamentalist Christianity. Because we haven't been able to resolve this problem, I'm going to go ahead and close this thread.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2011
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: The Big Bang Makes No Philosphical Since To Me Help
  1. The Big Bang (Replies: 38)

Loading...