Another Big Bang thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemondiesel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lemondiesel

Guest
I really wish to stay away from causes of the Big Bang, as I really do not care.

This is more of a thread to ask questions to better understand the Big Bang.

Mr. Lemondiesel simply wants to understand the concept!

The Big Bang was the expansion of the Singularity? And the expansion of this Singularity created space, along with matter and energy?

So, does it stand that everything exists within one singularity? Almost like taking an atom and expanding it to scale the universe (even though an atom is larger than the singularity).
 
awww, bummer. I was hoping this was a thread about the TV Show. Oh well 😉

I really don’t know enough to offer any good information, but there are some really knowledgable people on here who can help. 🙂
 
lemondiesel said:
I really wish to stay away from causes of the Big Bang, as I really do not care.

This is more of a thread to ask questions to better understand the Big Bang.

Mr. Lemondiesel simply wants to understand the concept!

The Big Bang was the expansion of the Singularity? And the expansion of this Singularity created space, along with matter and energy?

So, does it stand that everything exists within one singularity? Almost like taking an atom and expanding it to scale the universe (even though an atom is larger than the singularity).
Click to expand...
Although I am not a first-hand expert, only have done a fair amount of reading, I do know a little about “Big Bang” cosmology. I’ll be posting by tomorrow on the Magis Center of Reason and Faith Group a series of threads (direct link):
forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=338
You might also want to explore what’s said at the Magis Center web site about creation of the Universe:magisreasonfaith.org/files/pdfs/magis_factsheet.pdf
And here’s a quote from the best summary article I’ve read on cosmology by GFR Ellis,
“Issues in the Philsophy of Cosmology”:
Thesis D1: An initial singularity may or may not have occurred. A start to the universe may have occurred a finite time ago, but a variety of alternatives are conceivable: eternal universes, or universes where time as we know it came into existence in one or another way. We do not know which actually happened, although quantum gravity ideas suggest a singularity might be avoided
Click to expand...
and just as important
Thesis D2: Testable physics cannot explain the initial state and hence specific nature of the universe. A choice between different contingent possibilities has somehow occurred; the fundamental issue is what underlies this choice. Why does the universe have one specific form rather than another, when other forms consistent with physical laws seem perfectly possible? The reasons underlying the choice between different contingent possibilities for the universe (why one occurred rather than another) cannot be explored scientifically. It is an issue to be examined through philosophy or metaphysics.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added).
I’ll try to expand on these in threads in the Magis Center Group Forum.
anselm
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Cosmologists explain that the “Big Bang’s” heat signiture should not appear the way that it does if it were an ordinary explosion.

As you wrote, “The Big Bang was the expansion of the Singularity… the expansion of this Singularity created space, along with matter and energy.”
 
It honestly freaks me out to say I was created from a single point
 
I’ve only seen one or two episodes but
The Big Bang Theory seems quite funny. 😃

Actually, if you take God out of the picture, the idea become hilarious.
 
lemondiesel said:
I really wish to stay away from causes of the Big Bang, as I really do not care.

This is more of a thread to ask questions to better understand the Big Bang.

Mr. Lemondiesel simply wants to understand the concept!

The Big Bang was the expansion of the Singularity? And the expansion of this Singularity created space, along with matter and energy?

So, does it stand that everything exists within one singularity? Almost like taking an atom and expanding it to scale the universe (even though an atom is larger than the singularity).
Click to expand...
A quick note. Once science starts talking about a “singularity” that is spaceless, timeless, and energyless (which it would need to be to “give rise to” these things), it has left naturalism and assumed a supernatural worldview. In other words, unless supernaturalism is true, there is no “singularity” in the above sense.
 
Physics and cosmology can calculate the conditions of the cosmos very very close to the big bang, but not at the very instant of the big bang.

At the highly compressed conditions of the singularity, it may well be that there is no distinction between matter, energy, time, and space. All are aspects of the material universe. Even examining ordinary matter at lengths below the Planck length (very tiny indeed!) normal characteristics of space and time begin to break up.

But the singularity expanded too fast. That’s why the cosmologists invented inflation, and why some are now unhappy with it.

Now they find that there is insufficient matter in the universe to account for the actions of galaxies. So they had to invent dark matter.

Nobody ever said physics and cosmology is easy.
 
lemondiesel said:
I really wish to stay away from causes of the Big Bang, as I really do not care.

This is more of a thread to ask questions to better understand the Big Bang.

Mr. Lemondiesel simply wants to understand the concept!

The Big Bang was the expansion of the Singularity? And the expansion of this Singularity created space, along with matter and energy?

So, does it stand that everything exists within one singularity? Almost like taking an atom and expanding it to scale the universe (even though an atom is larger than the singularity).
Click to expand...
First of all we must ask, where did the Big Bang theory come from? It came from the theory that the universe is expanding. I say theory because that is all it is, for there are physicists who read the red-shifts differently.

OK, let us say that the universe is expanding. Using the scientific method, all possible reasons for an expansion must be considered. A big explosion is one possibility. But in the real world, particles do not come together from explosions. Nor do explosions create space. The Big Bang then is one non-scientific substitute for the ctretive act,
Pius XII, in an effort to support creation, jumped on the Big Bang bandwagon and said that it could offer a ‘scientific’ hypothesis for the creation by God of all out of nothing. But what happens to faith if science eventually rubbishes the Big Bang theory?

So, is there another explanation for an expanding universe? Well Copernicus said that if the universe was rotating, then he would expect the universe to be expanding outwards. You know what, of all the scientific theories, that one sticks to science.
 
yppop said:
It is even more freakish to think that we were created from nothing. i.e., creatio ex nihilo! Now what could that possibly mean?

Yppop
Click to expand...
youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
The_Exodus said:
A quick note. Once science starts talking about a “singularity” that is spaceless, timeless, and energyless (which it would need to be to “give rise to” these things), it has left naturalism and assumed a supernatural worldview. In other words, unless supernaturalism is true, there is no “singularity” in the above sense.
Click to expand...
Why can’t this singularity be infinite in space, time, and energy? Perhaps this Big Bang isn’t even the first, and perhaps this present universe is a reduction or gain of energy over time.
 
lemondiesel said:
youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Why can’t this singularity be infinite in space, time, and energy? Perhaps this Big Bang isn’t even the first, and perhaps this present universe is a reduction or gain of energy over time.
Click to expand...
Even the observable universe is not infinite. So if you compressed it into a small dense area, it would still be finite. Infinity wouldn’t match the observations, or the numbers.

In any case, the big bang theory is pretty well established. It has no serious contenders in the way of other theories. But there is still a lot of work to be done to refine it. At one time a steady-state theory of the universe was proposed; I recall Fred Hoyle being one of the early proponents. But it required continuous creation to make it work, and it fell by the wayside.

There’s nothing in the Big Bang theory which is a threat to Catholic theology.
 
lemondiesel said:
youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Why can’t this singularity be infinite in space, time, and energy? Perhaps this Big Bang isn’t even the first, and perhaps this present universe is a reduction or gain of energy over time.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “infinite”?

If you mean “containing all that could be” like a house that is “infinitely large,” then it seems obvious that it weren’t infinite in this way, otherwise, it could not change. Change would show that it was finite in some way, since it would at one time possess what it did not have.

I don’t have any idea if there was 1 big bang, or 100, or an infinite number. That’s a question for science, but it at least appears that, according to modern science, the best explanation is that there was 1 big bang, a certain time ago, and out of “it” came all there is now.

I see no problem at all in thinking the universe is eternally old. I hold by faith it came into being (which happens, at the moment, to be concurring with modern science), but even if it didn’t, it seems to me reasonable to think there still had to be some eternal battery inside this vast clock, to make it to have been running forever.
 
JimG said:
There’s nothing in the Big Bang theory which is a threat to Catholic theology.
Click to expand...
Not only that but I believe it endorses the idea that there is some sort of “God presence.” Whether it be the monotheistic God or others, I personally do not comment on.
 
yppop said:
It is even more freakish to think that we were created from nothing. i.e., creatio ex nihilo! Now what could that possibly mean?

Yppop
Click to expand...
Hello, Yppop:

With all due respect, that is incorrect. The correct transliteration is, “Something is created where nothing was before,” or, “where there was nothing before.” That’s quite a different statement. To say that God created the universe from Nothing is to say that He used some kind of unknown stuff, we just happen to call, “Nothing,” as the material out of which He fashioned the stars, the planets and space. Creation is the bringing into existence of something without the use or benefit of any kind of raw material. No Material Cause whatsoever.

God bless,
jd
 
lemondiesel said:
Why can’t this singularity be infinite in space, time, and energy? Perhaps this Big Bang isn’t even the first, and perhaps this present universe is a reduction or gain of energy over time.
Click to expand...
First, space can’t be infinite. It is not only bound by the outer limits of what science conceives to be the universe, but also, it is bound by matter, at its interior limits. In other words, space does not penetrate matter. There is space within macro-matter, but, not within quantum matter, electrons, neutrons and protons. It surrounds them.

Second, time cannot be infinite as it isn’t finished yet; it is still unfolding. The best that can be said is that time is potentially infinite.

Third, energy cannot be infinite as it is receding into entropy. But, even if it weren’t, it would be limited by the existence of space.

Whether there exists, or did exist, multiple universes, or instances of this universe, is pure speculation. But, we are here, in this one universe, that exists here and now, and that is the unavoidable Truth.

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
First, space can’t be infinite. It is not only bound by the outer limits of what science conceives to be the universe, but also, it is bound by matter, at its interior limits. In other words, space does not penetrate matter. There is space within macro-matter, but, not within quantum matter, electrons, neutrons and protons. It surrounds them.

Second, time cannot be infinite as it isn’t finished yet; it is still unfolding. The best that can be said is that time is potentially infinite.

Third, energy cannot be infinite as it is receding into entropy. But, even if it weren’t, it would be limited by the existence of space.

Whether there exists, or did exist, multiple universes, or instances of this universe, is pure speculation. But, we are here, in this one universe, that exists here and now, and that is the unavoidable Truth.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Sorry for interupting you guys again but wasn’t there a time when man knew the universe wasn’t infinite. It was based on the same theory of Copernicus’s expanding universe, a revolving universe. You see a revolving universe proves it cannot be infinite for an infinite universe cannot be made revolve.

Oh by the way, we will have none of that multiple universes stuff on CAF anymore. You see I found that such a notion has been condemned by Pope Pius II in 1459, in the letter “Cum sicut”

CONDEMNED(3) That God created another world than this one… Denz. 717c.
 
cassini said:
Sorry for interupting you guys again but wasn’t there a time when man knew the universe wasn’t infinite. It was based on the same theory of Copernicus’s expanding universe, a revolving universe. You see a revolving universe proves it cannot be infinite for an infinite universe cannot be made revolve.
Click to expand...
Hello, Cassini:

I don’t think that a theory of a “revolving universe” would be true enough even to be theoretical. If the entire universe is revolving, how would we know? What references would we use to know that it is revolving. Now, the stuff inside of the outer boundaries could all be revolving, or, moving, relatively speaking. But, for these things, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, moons, etc., there are see-able references. The stuff of the universe could be revolving within the universe’s outer wall, or, at least moving in reference to what each island of matter is, or was, proximate to.

Certainly the universe cannot be infinite as it is composed. It is composed of islands of material of varying sizes. Each with its own surrounding limit, or surface. Even in terms of quanta, there is no doubt an uncountable quantity of it. As uncountable as it all appears to us to be, it is still non-infinite.
Oh by the way, we will have none of that multiple universes stuff on CAF anymore. You see I found that such a notion has been condemned by Pope Pius II in 1459, in the letter “Cum sicut”
Click to expand...
CONDEMNED(3) That God created another world than this one… Denz. 717c.
Click to expand...
The concept of multiple universes is not even true enough to be theoretical, per se. It is merely an effortless assertion designed to contend with certain seemingly effortless religious assertions. Black holes, and dark energy, give such ideas a bit of authenticity.

God bless,
jd
 
Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Here is an explanation I came across recently, but the author’s name was lost.

ON GALAXIES AND THE BIG BANG

"In 1927, a Belgian astrophysicist, Georges Lemaitre [1894-1966], used the combination of observation and theory to come up with the first version of what we would now call the Big Bang model of the Universe. He talked in terms of a “primordial atom” (or sometimes “primeval egg”), containing all the mass of all the galaxies in the visible Universe, sitting alone in space and then suddenly breaking apart in an explosion, like the fission of a giant radioactive nucleus. This image encouraged other people to take up the investigation of the Big Bang – but in one respect it is a misleading one, since what Einstein’s equations tell us is that space itself is expanding.

The Big Bang was not an explosion that took place somewhere in empty space, with fragments from the explosion (galaxies) flying apart through space like shrapnel from an exploding shell. Rather, what happens is that space itself expands, and takes galaxies along for the ride. It’s like a piece of elastic on which you make several ink blobs. When you pull the two ends apart, the elastic expands and the blobs of ink move farther apart – but they do not move through the elastic.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top