Questions about Big Bang

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
How have we updated the Big Bang equations since the discovery of dark matter and energy (and other new finding since the original theory)?

Where would I go to find a book on such matters?

Please forgive my lack of knowledge in these areas!

Thanks!

Also, I am not sure whether I used the correct term “equations.”

Again, thanks!
 
Jim_Baur said:
How have we updated the Big Bang equations since the discovery of dark matter and energy (and other new finding since the original theory)?

Where would I go to find a book on such matters?

Please forgive my lack of knowledge in these areas!

Thanks!

Also, I am not sure whether I used the correct term “equations.”

Again, thanks!
Click to expand...
Jim:

The internet has tons of information on the subject. Here’s an article on “dark matter,” for example:

news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/05/02-01.html
 
They update the Big Bang equations constantly, in attempts to both (1) gain better predictive and explanatory power, and mainly (2) to try to deny creatio ex nihilo and the role of God. That latter one is where all of the philosophically absurd, scientifically untestable “multiverse” theories come from.

If I’m not mistaken, the last major development in the actual singularity equations (dismissing all of the expanding-universe, baby-universe, faster-expanding-primordial-vacuum models) was Hawking’s swapping out of real numbers for imaginary numbers, so that space-time didn’t have a termination-point per se, but a curve from whence it started - the lightcone of the universe, when illustrated, looked like a traffic cone instead of the tip of a pencil, eliminating “the singularity” by mathematical fiat. Needless to say, it’s not gained a great adherence. And Hawking isn’t always right, as evidenced by his losing the bet - after holding out longer than any other physicist - that black holes could indeed spawn other universes by the retention of information and a non-zero level of entropy. From Wikipedia:

"Thorne and Hawking argued that since general relativity made it impossible for black holes to radiate, and lose information, the mass-energy and information carried by Hawking Radiation must be “new”, and must not originate from inside the black hole event horizon. Since this contradicted the idea under quantum mechanics of microcausality, quantum mechanics would need to be rewritten.

Preskill argued the opposite, that since quantum mechanics suggests that the information emitted by a black hole relates to information that fell in at an earlier time, the view of black holes given by general relativity must be modified in some way.

Hawking had earlier speculated that the singularity at the centre of a black hole could form a bridge to a “baby universe,” a term coined by Canadian Astrophysicist Chad Bryden, into which the lost information could pass; such theories have been very popular in science fiction. But according to Hawking’s new idea, presented at the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, on 21 July 2004 in Dublin, Republic of Ireland, black holes eventually transmit, in a garbled form, information about all matter they swallow.

In 2004, Hawking announced that he was conceding the bet, and that he now believed that black hole horizons should fluctuate and leak information, in doing so providing Preskill with a copy of Total Baseball, The Ultimate Baseball Encyclopedia.[1] Comparing the useless information obtainable from a black hole to “burning an encyclopedia”, Hawking later joked, “I gave John an encyclopedia of baseball, but maybe I should just have given him the ashes.”[2]

Thorne, however, remained unconvinced of Hawking’s proof and declined to contribute to the award.[3] As of 2008, Hawking’s argument that he has solved the paradox has not yet been accepted by the community, and a consensus has not yet been reached that Hawking has provided a strong enough argument that this is in fact what happens."

Note: I am not a physicist nor a mathematician. My understanding of tje Standard Model is limited to introductory-level college texts, and my understanding of Standard Model replacements and extensions (string theory, M-theory, etc.) is limited to that gleaned from popular science books.
 
Jim_Baur said:
How have we updated the Big Bang equations since the discovery of dark matter and energy (and other new finding since the original theory)?

Where would I go to find a book on such matters?

Please forgive my lack of knowledge in these areas!

Thanks!

Also, I am not sure whether I used the correct term “equations.”

Again, thanks!
Click to expand...
First, we have not found dark matter or energy! It’s still part of cosmology theory that is “hidden”–despite the assumption that roughly 96% of our universe consists of dark energy and dark matter.

Second, the only equation necessary to introduce the big bang is the Hubble law (really should be Lemaitre law, but that’s another story): time = distance / velocity. The distance to the further galaxies divided by the velocity of those galaxies gives us the age of the universe. This equation has been updated in terms of more accurate numbers for the distances and velocities, but it still gives us about 14 billion years.

Third, dark matter & dark energy come from manipulations Einstein’s field equations. These are still being argued over (there’s a fair number of people who don’t believe in the two), but the equations are updated regularly, as Khalid points out.
 
I am flummoxed about the entire thing.

Is there scientific consensus on dark matter and energy?

Is there scientific consensus on the universe’s limit or infinity?

If we have not discovered the limit of the universe, how can math handle such realities?

Is it possible to see light from a scource 50 billion years away? Or how far can we see the light from stars and galaxies?

Are there different scientific parties on these issues, like Democrates and Republican. The Republican say that they are correct and the Democrates say they are correct.

Can human reason accurately discern answers to these things?

It seems to my intuition that if there is actually dark matter and energy, the entire Big Bang has to be renamed. It would radically change the theory.

Are the Big Bang scientists creating beings of reason and then trying to explain how these beings of reason could actually exist?

Well, I am not sure if I am clearly stating my confusion or not. But I am truly beginning to wonder: Yes, Virginia There Is a Big Bang. And Dorothy, “do not pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.”

I want to honestly thank you great people for your patience and help, Lord knows I need both.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, and thank you et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…
 
Oh, I truly believe that God created the world.

The science does not make sense to me.

Science is great.

This science seems to be based on beings of reason.

Then the beings of reason are said to actually exist outside of the mind the scientists.

I do not believe the scientists see this fallacy.

Furthermore, I believe that their are a handful of scientists that have done the actual math and physics.

The rest of us believe or do not believe.

I am in the camp that does not believe the handful, if any, that have honestly done the math and physics.

I am perplexed by the amount of unknows, and the unknowns are many and great. Then some scientists say that they know. Intuitively it makes no sense.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I am flummoxed about the entire thing.

Is there scientific consensus on dark matter and energy?

No.

Is there scientific consensus on the universe’s limit or infinity?
**
Yes, that it can not be infinite, that it began.**

If we have not discovered the limit of the universe, how can math handle such realities?
**
Transfinite set theory deals with actual infinities, which, in reality, are absurd, as demonstrated by Hilbert’s Hotel. A poor analogy, but math, like philosophy, can deal with moves three steps ahead of empirical science.**

Is it possible to see light from a scource 50 billion years away? Or how far can we see the light from stars and galaxies?

No. We can see 13.7GLy in every direction.

Are there different scientific parties on these issues, like Democrates and Republican. The Republican say that they are correct and the Democrates say they are correct.

Not really - it’s much more multifaceted and less partisan.

Can human reason accurately discern answers to these things?

Unaided? In many cases, yes (Aristotle, by pure logic, deduced that the Universe must have a beginning, over 2200 years before empirical science demonstrated it: most scientists held to a steady state theory - in contravention of the metaphysical evidence - before that point).

It seems to my intuition that if there is actually dark matter and energy, the entire Big Bang has to be renamed. It would radically change the theory.

No, it wouldn’t. It may change the result, but it does not change the actual event, nor following events on the scale of the Planck time, nor the fine-tuning thereof: the “stuff” or equations itself remains unchanged, but some variables and eigenvectors would not be.

Are the Big Bang scientists creating beings of reason and then trying to explain how these beings of reason could actually exist?

If I interpret you correctly, no - most actively try to disprove the need of any creator, and have gone to absurd lengths (e.g. chaotic inflationary multiverse hypothesis) to try to keep any Theistic foot from getting in the door.

Well, I am not sure if I am clearly stating my confusion or not. But I am truly beginning to wonder: Yes, Virginia There Is a Big Bang. And Dorothy, “do not pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.”

The Big Bang is the best empirical/scientific evidence for God’s existence and providence of any yet discovered. It’s not as good as the metaphysical evidence, but in some places it reinforces it.
Click to expand...
 
Nelka said:
Am I the only one left who still believes that God created the world?
Click to expand...
No. God created the heavens and the earth: we perceive the beginning point of this creatio ex nihilo in space-time as the big bang.
 
Nelka said:
Am I the only one left who still believes that God created the world?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the “father” of the big bang theory was himself, a Father; he was a Catholic Priest who was a professor of Physics. Monsignor Georges LaMaitre. The more you study this story the more you realize that it was a Catholic Priest who first theorized the big bang and Einstein who told him he was wrong! It wasn’t until Hubble came around that it could be proven and then it has been wrongly attributed to Hubble ever since.

Science is not exclusive of religion. Certainly God created the world, and He just may have done so through the Big Bang.
 
Boulder257 said:
Keep in mind that the “father” of the big bang theory was himself, a Father; he was a Catholic Priest who was a professor of Physics. Monsignor Georges LaMaitre. The more you study this story the more you realize that it was a Catholic Priest who first theorized the big bang and Einstein who told him he was wrong! **It wasn’t until Hubble came around that it could be proven and then it has been wrongly attributed to Hubble ever since. **

Science is not exclusive of religion. Certainly God created the world, and He just may have done so through the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Actually, Lemaitre used nearly the same exact data to show the expansion nearly 2 years before Hubble repeated it! Lemaitre published his data in a Belgian journal and it wasn’t translated into English until 4 years later–and when it was translated, someone removed the work Lemaitre did on the expansion and left only the theoretical aspect.
There’s a lot of speculation and such on the topic, but there’s a growing number of people who are arguing that Hubble should not be given credit for the discovery and Lemaitre should.
 
I have read a great deal, however, I cannot recall the answers to my questions.

How long did the point of matter and energy exist before the Big Bang?

Could it have existed 10 seconds, five years, or 10,000,000,000 years?

Thanks!

Also, I am totally incredulous that a photon of energy can last 15 billion years. HELP!

I FEEL that there is something incorrect about something–optics, physics, math, something! HELP & THANKS!

Again, is the science of the Big Bang “a priori”? HELP and THANKS!

How many scientists have actually did the astronomy, chemistry and math? I know that the question is sill, but I have never met one. The have never read a book on this where the author informed me that they had actually done the math. HELP and THANKS!
 
The singularity existed never before the Big Bang occurred. The Big Bang is the start of space and time - there is no way to judge time before it, as, by definition, time did not yet exist (Hawking’s A Short History of Time).

This becomes an obvious God-shaped hole in the theory to those who won’t produce ever-whackier, more-complex, sliced-by-Ockham’s-razor theories, afraid of a Theistic foot getting in the door.

Photons are absolutely stable on universal timescales - they do not decay. Photons are one of the building-blocks of matter: there is nothing smaller, hence, nothing to decay in to - other things decay in to photons, nothing decays from a photon. Fissile and fusile decay involve nuclei of atoms, not particles, decaying in to two things which already exist within themselves. However, string theory and M-theory predict that on massive timescales, photons and protons do indeed decay, likely in to gamma rays. According to the Standard Model, photons can not, by definition, decay, and every photon that exists, will exist until existence is no more (in the case of the disproved “big crunch” hypotheses) or will exist forever (in the case of the likely “future-infinite cosmos” hypotheses).

I’m an amateur physicist and mathematician, and have worked the equations, and find that the Big Bang theory offers a perfect, elegant, powerful description of how the universe was created by God. There are many additions to the Big Bang theory that are often presented as having equal stature (chaotic inflation, multiverse, etc.) that don’t, and are indeed incoherent. But vanilla Big Bang cosmology is where it’s at. You might try reading Hawking’s A Short History of Time and William Lane Craig’s Time and Eternity, the former from an atheistic perspective (but still very valuable), the latter from a theistic perspective.
 
Khalid

I have “A Short History of Time” at least twice.

I have not read “Time and Eternity.”

I believe it is in Hawking that I got the idea that his theory is “a priori.” I do not believe that he uses that term, but the same idea.

Is that correct?

Oh, and I cannot thank you enough for your helpful patience.

I am still pondering.

From where do you start in terms of the math?

As far as I can discern, the universe could be 50,000,000,000,000 years old or older. We do not know how far it extends, do we?

Again, thanks for your patience?

Also, in terms of the secular scientists, they reject a designer, is that correct?

In terms of schools of thought in this area, who is the authority?

Should that or those authorities be trusted by the lay people?

Do you know of any other scientists that have actually done the math?

If you have the time and energy, is there not blue shift stars and galaxies?

I believe, do know, there are billions upon billions of them. I know that it is a low percentage compared to Redshift, but still billions upon billions. How does that effect the Big Bang theory?

But again, by biggest concern: is the Big Bang “a priori” ?

Thanks!!!

Side note, in Islam are there holy men and women? To use Christian terms, are there saints? THANKS!!!

I would love to read some of their stories. Thanks!
 
One: what perspective are you coming from? I.e. Old Earth, Young Earth, Day-Age, Gap Theory, Omphalos, etc.? I highly doubt that you’re coming from a theistic evolution or progressive creation perspective.

Have no fear, I am not a Darwinist, and I do believe in the literal truth of our first parents’ fall in the Garden as described in Genesis 2-3, and the creation narrative of Genesis 1. I don’t believe in a worldwide flood, at the moment at least, but a massive flood of the ancient near east region (which would be the same from the perspective of Noah, granted that phenomenological language was used, but I admit there are problems in my view to be harmonized). I suppose I could be described a a “pre-Adamite progressive creationist”.

Strangely enough, I find young world creation to be the second-most-compelling view (but not for the reason that Big Bang theory has to postulate “dark matter” and “dark energy” in order for it to make sense: I do not think that it weakens the singularity theory’s power or truth vis a vis any other model, although it does seem to weaken it within itself, as per the data collected by the WMAP probe and the hadron accelerators*), and think that it has demonstrated some things that are of extreme interest (the RATE project, decay of earth’s magnetic field) that mainstream science has no sufficient answer for (although the results of the RATE project seem to be impossible by the very laws of the standard model, I still find it intriguing).

*It is hoped that larger hadron colliders and the new Planck probe will solve these questions, but I am doubtful. Doubtful of the particle colliders mainly due to the fact that I think M-theory is ********.
 
Khalid

I am not sure into which category I would fall.

I do not believe in the Big Bang ideas.

I believe the Big Bang ideas are a priori.

I do believe in the God of the Jews and Christians.

I do believe He created.

How, I do not know and it does not seem important to Him that we know the HOW.

I love and respect science, math and technology.

I love and respect philosophy.

I believe that we can demonstrate that there is a first cause, necessary, unmoved mover, greatest being and necessary being. And that being we call God.

I believe that it is the same God that revealed Himself to Abraham and Moses.

However, the necessary being is seen with our reasoning ability, and that is different than knowing of God through Revelation. Abraham and Moses is through Revelation.

I do not reject or eject the first eleven chapters of Genesis, however, I am not sure how to comprehended it.

I believe with Maimonides and Thomas, it is not possible to disprove the eternity of the universe. However the universe does depend on a creator. That creator could have called it in to being for all eternity.

I do believe that the most literal meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis is God is truly in love with us and that it is His love that created and calls us back to Him with mercy, kindness, tenderness and the like. He, like in the Song of Songs, madly in love with us. He yearns for us. He longs to be loved by us.

Those are just a few ideas.

Concerning the Big Bang and theories similar to it, I believe that they are a priori arguments.

I am a Roman Catholic.

I love the exegesis of Benedict XVI.

I love Origen.

I love Augustine.

I love Maimonides’ Guide.

I love Thomas, just to mention a few.

But the best book I have studied is “Secret Fire of Mother Teresa,” by Joesph Langford, M. C.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top