[_ Old Earth _] What Set Off The Big Bang?

[KenEOTE]

I am curious what you believe on this. At one point everything in the universe was as small as an atom and then BANG it exploded. What are the theories surrounding what caused the explosion. Yes they are theories, so don't pretend to say you know what happened. I want to know the theories. I believe Steven Hawkins is actually writing a new book on the subject, because he felt his original theory was wrong. So lets here some fun stuff.

 

[Snidey]

I believe it's a widely held theory that it was actually smaller than an atom. A singularity, if you will.

But honestly, you want this message board to sink into amateur astrophysics and quantum mechanics and the like? Bleh.

 

[Paidion]

I am curious what you believe on this. At one point everything in the universe was as small as an atom and then BANG it exploded. What are the theories surrounding what caused the explosion.

Your question seems to suggest that explanations of the cause of the explosion are all theories, whereas the BANG itself is a fact. Let's get real. It's all theory.

Big Bang theory is an attempt to explain certain observations, such as what is intrepreted to be the continuous expansion of the Universe.

Not only do I disbelieve that there ever was a Big Bang, but I question that the Universe is even expanding. I think that conclusion has come from a misunderstanding of the behaviour of light.

 

[KenEOTE]

But honestly, you want this message board to sink into amateur astrophysics and quantum mechanics and the like? Bleh.

Yes, yes I do. You don't have to come back to the thread if you find it "Bleh."

But it is fascinting to me. So it is smaller than an atom and then bang it explodes creating atoms and masses so large. That is awesome if you think about it. What could possibly have started it all.

 

[Snidey]

I am curious what you believe on this. At one point everything in the universe was as small as an atom and then BANG it exploded. What are the theories surrounding what caused the explosion.

Your question seems to suggest that explanations of the cause of the explosion are all theories, whereas the BANG itself is a fact. Let's get real. It's all theory.

Big Bang theory is an attempt to explain certain observations, such as what is intrepreted to be the continuous expansion of the Universe.

Not only do I disbelieve that there ever was a Big Bang, but I question that the Universe is even expanding. I think that conclusion has come from a misunderstanding of the behaviour of light.

Do elaborate. I assume you're referring to Hubble's Law? What about background radiation? The distribution of galaxies? Primordial nucleosynthesis? Or any of the other numerous lines of evidence that the Big Bang occurred?

 

[BobRyan]

I am curious what you believe on this. At one point everything in the universe was as small as an atom and then BANG it exploded. What are the theories surrounding what caused the explosion. Yes they are theories, so don't pretend to say you know what happened. I want to know the theories. I believe Steven Hawkins is actually writing a new book on the subject, because he felt his original theory was wrong. So lets here some fun stuff.

Simple take your everyday ordinary infinitely dense "nothing" and "explode it" into the universe.

Step 1 - have an infinitely dense nothing -- we will name it "spaghetti-monster-nothing" for lack of a better name. "SMN" as the short form.

Step 2 - be sure to have the four forces of nature combined into one. Gravity, Electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nulcear force combined into -- well let's call it Rabbit-force for lack of a better term - RF as the short form. And since entirely different force requires entirely new physics to describe -- RFP -- for rabbit-force-physics.

Step 3-- make it explode but not IN the fabric of space time -- rather make the explosion BE the fabric of space time so you get "inflation".

Pretty simple to imagine really -- and thanks for asking.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Do elaborate. I assume you're referring to Hubble's Law? What about background radiation? The distribution of galaxies? Primordial nucleosynthesis? Or any of the other numerous lines of evidence that the Big Bang occurred?

What about the fact that the background temp of space was ALREADY predicted to be 2.5 K even WITHOUT the Big-Bang theory?

What about the fact Gamow predicted a BIG-Bang result would be 50K revised up from his earlier prediction of 5K?

What about the fact that the MEASURED value is in fact 2.7k??

Bob

 

[Snidey]

lol, you think Gamow's prediction not being accurate is a count against the theory? Predictions are not always accurate. Science!

Cite something for your other claims and explain the relevance and I'll see if I can address them.

 

[BobRyan]

Well lets see we HAVE a prediction of 2.5k and a FINDING of 2.7K -- sounds like PREDICTION DID come in pretty close!!

Recall that a key BENEFIT of real science is it's ability to predict things ( events and behavior) in our environment.

Given that the lower 2.5K value was obtained just by considering the heat of the Milkyway alone -- you might even call this CONFIRMATION!

Instead of looking as at the CMB as prediction that DIDN't work -- how about admitting that it looks a lot like prediction that DID work for heat in the universe sans-big-bang imagination?

You know -- the obvious.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Cite your actual claims. Where did Gamow make this prediction? What other predictions are you referring to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow says nothing about the 50K prediction, mentioning only the 5K prediction. But I suppose that's Big Science conspiracy-related, so what is your source?

 

[BobRyan]

The point is that "the science" for the Big Bang is far more tenuous than the solid science behind ID... (though we can all grant that it is nothing like the "junk-science" propping up atheist darwinism).

The late Sir Arthur Eddingtonâ€â€in his book, The Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926)â€â€already had provided an accurate explanation for this temperature found in space. In the book’s last chapter (“Diffuse Matter in Spaceâ€Â), he discussed the temperature in space. In Eddington’s estimation, this phenomenon was not due to some ancient explosion, but rather was simply the background radiation from all of the heat sources that occupy the Universe. He calculated the minimum temperature to which any particular body in space would cool, given the fact that such bodies constantly are immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained a value of 3.18 K (later refined to 2.8)â€â€essentially the same as the observed “background†radiation that is known to exist today.

In 1933, German scientist Erhard Regener showed that the intensity of the radiation coming from the plane of the Milky Way was essentially the same as that coming from a plane normal to it. He obtained a value of 2.8 K, which he felt would be the temperature characteristic of intergalactic space (see Regener, Erhard (1933), Zeitschrift fur Physik, 106:633-661, English translation by Gabriella Moesle. ) His prediction came more than thirty years before Penzias and Wilson’s discovery of the cosmic microwave background.

The radiation that Big Bang theorists predicted was supposed to be much hotter than what was actually discovered. Gamow started his prediction at 5 K, and just a few years before Penzias and Wilson’s discovery, suggested that it should be 50 K
(see Alpher, R.A. and Herman, R. (1949), Physical Review, 75:1089-1095. --
(see Gamow, G. (1961), The Creation of the Universe (New York: Viking).

(OOPS! was that "the part" where I "supposed" to simply whine about "Big Science"? -- shhh! keep this a secret from the puppeteers scripting the Colbert Report))

Bob

 

[Snidey]

So Gamow's predictions ranged and THUS the Big Bang did not occur? How does this follow? Here's a brief timeline courtesy of Wikipedia:

Timeline of the discovery of the CMB

Important dates and personas

1946 Robert Dicke predicts a microwave background radiation temperature of "less than 20K" (ref: Helge Kragh), but later revised to 45K (ref: Stephen G. Brush)
1946 George Gamow estimates a temperature of 50K
1948 Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman re-estimate Gamow's estimate at 5K.
1949 Alpher and Herman re-re-estimate Gamow's estimate at 28K.
1960s Robert Dicke re-estimates an MBR (microwave background radiation) temperature of 40K (ref: Helge Kragh)
1964 A. G. Doroshkevich and Igor Novikov publish a brief paper, where they name the MBR phenomenon as detectable.
1960s Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson measure the temperature to be approximately 3 K

Scientists were all over the place on this, and a lack of ability to accurately predict the temperature with any consistency doesn't really indicate anything. I know you cream yourself whenever a scientist does something inaccurately, but a little perspective would be nice.

And what does Regener have to do with it? His prediction was accurate, but makes no statement as to the nature of the beginnings of the universe. However, with the Big Bang as with evolution, you try to point to a lack of evidence instead of providing alternative explanations. Or, at the least, you dismiss the vast majority of experts on a topic once you've found a single one that you can agree with(like Eddington, lol, who nearly ended his career in disgrace because of his insistence on some incorrect points).

The expansion of the universe is uncontroversial. It can also be measured that the universe was warmer earlier in its history (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012222). That article basically ruled out other explanations for certain phenomena and made the expansion of the universe the only suitable theory. So what do you believe is cooling the universe down?

 

[therealsuperman64]

What set off the Big Bang? Ignorance. Ignorance of a supernatural power higher than ourselves. I laugh everytime I hear this topic being teached because it's funny what people will make up in order to deny the existence of God. That's what makes it interesting.

But it is fascinting to me. So it is smaller than an atom and then bang it explodes creating atoms and masses so large. That is awesome if you think about it. What could possibly have started it all.

That is just ridiculous, it's like trying to make sense of how a vampire bite can change a human into a vampire. It's all just a load of crap.

 

[jmm9683]

What set off the Big Bang? Ignorance. Ignorance of a supernatural power higher than ourselves.

I bet you didn't even realize how ironic that statement was.

 

[lordkalvan]

What set off the Big Bang? Ignorance. Ignorance of a supernatural power higher than ourselves. I laugh everytime I hear this topic being teached because it's funny what people will make up in order to deny the existence of God. That's what makes it interesting.

But it is fascinting to me. So it is smaller than an atom and then bang it explodes creating atoms and masses so large. That is awesome if you think about it. What could possibly have started it all.

That is just ridiculous, it's like trying to make sense of how a vampire bite can change a human into a vampire. It's all just a load of crap.

I make no comment on the validity of BB theory at this stage, but would like to suggest that if God is regarded as beyond space and time - which surely must be the case - and if you are not wedded to biblical literalism, it is entirely possible to argue the BB (and the resulting Universe) as the physical outcome of God's creative act.

 

[Deep Thought]

What set off the Big Bang? Ignorance. Ignorance of a supernatural power higher than ourselves. I laugh everytime I hear this topic being teached because it's funny what people will make up in order to deny the existence of God. That's what makes it interesting.

But it is fascinting to me. So it is smaller than an atom and then bang it explodes creating atoms and masses so large. That is awesome if you think about it. What could possibly have started it all.

That is just ridiculous, it's like trying to make sense of how a vampire bite can change a human into a vampire. It's all just a load of crap.

Great to see some really intelligent, scientific and rational debate on this topic .

 

[BobRyan]

The late Sir Arthur Eddingtonâ€â€in his book, The Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926)â€â€already had provided an accurate explanation for this temperature found in space. In the book’s last chapter (“Diffuse Matter in Spaceâ€Â), he discussed the temperature in space. In Eddington’s estimation, this phenomenon was not due to some ancient explosion, but rather was simply the background radiation from all of the heat sources that occupy the Universe. He calculated the minimum temperature to which any particular body in space would cool, given the fact that such bodies constantly are immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained a value of 3.18 K (later refined to 2.8)â€â€essentially the same as the observed “background†radiation that is known to exist today.

So what we have is

1926 - 3.18K Eddington
1896 Guillaume: 5-6 K in 1896
1926 Eddington: 3.18 K in 1926 (later refined to 2.8k)
1933 Regner: 2.8 K in 1933
1937 Nernst: 0.75 K in 1937 (Nernst later adopted Regner’s value of 2.8)
1941 McKellar and Herzberg: 2.3 K in 1941

So Gamow's predictions ranged and THUS the Big Bang did not occur?

Nope. As we now NO BB prediction came closer than 5K and in the the 1960's Gamow revised his estimate upwards to 50K.

By contrast to the NOn-Big Bang estimates --

Big Bang predictions --

1943 Dicke predicted a value of 20K for the CBR in 1943.
1961 Gamov -- 50K

Your list is even worse for the Big Bang

Important dates and personas

1946 Robert Dicke predicts a microwave background radiation temperature of "less than 20K" (ref: Helge Kragh), but later revised to 45K (ref: Stephen G. Brush)
1946 George Gamow estimates a temperature of 50K
1948 Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman re-estimate Gamow's estimate at 5K.
1949 Alpher and Herman re-re-estimate Gamow's estimate at 28K.
1960s Robert Dicke re-estimates an MBR (microwave background radiation) temperature of 40K (ref: Helge Kragh)
1964 A. G. Doroshkevich and Igor Novikov publish a brief paper, where they name the MBR phenomenon as detectable.
1960s Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson measure the temperature to be approximately 3 K

As you note they never got closer than 5K when trying to solve for the Big Bang.

While the non-Big Bang estimates were pretty close to the actual value -- no need for that group to apologize -- they hit it on the mark.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So Gamow's predictions ranged and THUS the Big Bang did not occur?

I need to clarify something before you get going too far down that road. You make the comment "thus the Big Bang did not occur" -- AS IF I have ever said anything of the kind.

If you will check "carefully" -- not once have I argued "the big bang did not happen".

What I argue is in reference to the first reason this was brought up - which is it's connection to ID and the argument that ID is every bit as scientific as the Big Bang -- in fact ID has even MORE CONFIRMED science behind it than the big bang (EM wave forms showing ID for example).

I then go to the heart of the "predictive" nature of the Big Bang argument showing that the CMB is itself NOT a triumph for the science of Big Bang since the ACTUAL predictions CONFIRMED as matching the ACTUAL measurements were non-Big Bang predictions!

Simply showing the gaps in that science to be "rather large" - but do not take this as an argument AGAINST Big Bang ANY MORE than I would make an argument against ID. To me they are BOTH excellent examples of science driving TOWARDS confirmation of Bible predictions.

In Scripture we have "God Spoke and IT WAS" -- in the Big Bang -- the entire universe billows out into existence in about 3 minutes time -- expanding MUCH FASTER than the speed of light to do so. How can I - as a Christian possibly argue with that kind of "God spoke AND IT WAS" argument?

Secondly scripture says that "God STRETCHES out the heavens as a curtain" while the Big Bang argues for INFLATION that is not simply "an explosion IN the fabric of space time" but rather it "IS SPACE TIME STRETCHING OUT"...

So basically - my argument is not against the Big Bang being true -- at least not when it comes to inflation and not when it comes to that "something from nothing faster than the speed of light and in about 3 minutes time" argument for "all the matter in the univers" where it IS ALL in uniform temperature distribution "from the start".

My argument is simply THAT THE SCIENCE behind the Big Bang has far more gaps in it than ID -- as much as BOTH efforts in science are very pleasing to a Bible Believing Christian argument -- but NEITHER of them are accepted today by the YEC group as a substitute for the actual YEC POV. They are simply TWO examples of science finding confirming evidence that is in agreement with parts of the YEC view.

I say this because I get the impression you think you are "defending atheism" by arguing for the Big Bang and trying to ignore the problems IN THE SCIENCE with the history of the "predictions" being a confirming evidence of the BIG Bang or simply "Another problem" in establishing the "confirmation" of the theory. And I suspect you imagine that I need to oppose the Big Bang argument no matter how well it fits the Bible model -- I assure you ... that is not the case with the Big Bang or with ID. Both of them are a help to my argument even though I am free to admit to the gaps in the science for each of them.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Stop skipping around the main points. My whole point with saying "Gamow is wrong and thus the Big Bang did not occur" is that you frequently make points that are irrelevant to whether something happened or is happening, then leave it at that. Scientists have made far more inaccurate predictions on far less complicated topics than this.

But why don't you address the fact that the universe is cooling down? Why was it hotter before? Why is it cooling?

 

[lordkalvan]

.....If you will check "carefully" -- not once have I argued "the big bang did not happen".

What I argue is in reference to the first reason this was brought up - which is it's connection to ID and the argument that ID is every bit as scientific as the Big Bang -- in fact ID has even MORE CONFIRMED science behind it than the big bang (EM wave forms showing ID for example).

I then go to the heart of the "predictive" nature of the Big Bang argument showing that the CMB is itself NOT a triumph for the science of Big Bang since the ACTUAL predictions CONFIRMED as matching the ACTUAL measurements were non-Big Bang predictions!....

I am puzzled as to why you regard estimates of the background temperature of the Universe as part of the confirming "predictive" (your quotation marks) nature of Big Bang theory. It is rather the case, surely, that increasingly refined and more reliable measurements of the CMB support the validity of the theory, not that that the accuracy of pre-existing estimates validate (or invalidate) any predictive nature of the theory. That 'non-Big Bang predictions' of the background temperature of the Universe were more (or less) accurate than 'Big Bang predictions' is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not the CMB is a triumph for any sort of science at all. From the Wiki article on Cosmic microwave background radiation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation:

Although there were several previous estimates of the temperature of space...., these suffered from two flaws. First, they were measurements of the effective temperature of space, and did not suggest that space was filled with a thermal Planck spectrum; second, they are dependent on our special place at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy and did not suggest the radiation is isotropic. Moreover, they would yield very different predictions if Earth happened to be located elsewhere in the universe.

The interpretation of what the CMB signified was the crux of the matter for astrophysics, not that Big Bang theory predicted it should be X and any variation from X in some way degraded or undermined the theory. Again from Wiki:

The interpretation of the cosmic microwave background was a controversial issue in the 1960s with some proponents of the steady state theory arguing that the microwave background was the result of scattered starlight from distant galaxies......However, during the 1970s the consensus was established that the cosmic microwave background is a remnant of the big bang. This was largely because new measurements at a range of frequencies showed that the spectrum was a thermal, black body spectrum, a result that the steady state model was unable to reproduce.

How you transform all this into a claim that in some way

...ID has even MORE CONFIRMED science behind it than the big bang...

is entirely beyond me. It is clearly the case, as far as I can see, that ID has contributed nothing to our understanding of cosmology - or pretty much anything else for that matter.