Scientists' help wanted!

[Seamus_Sully]

If there are any Big Bang scientists reading this thread, I want help in the area of Big Bang; or, perhaps, the time before the Big Bang.

I really am not looking for anything but information. I surely don’t want to challenge your knowlege. I want your knowledge.
If you answer, please try to keep it simple. Write slowly, because I think slowly!!!

Concerning the Big Bang: from where did the energy and matter of the Big Bang come?

As of now, have we been able to observe the perimeters of the universe? If there are scientific ideas concerning these questions, please give your evaluation of them.

Again, I would like scientists in this area of study, if there are any that read this forum.

If there is a person that can address these questions, I know that they are poorly formulated, but this is the best I can do at the present time. I am a layperson in this area.

Obviously, any person can answer on these forums, but please let me know if you are an actual scientist in this area, thank you!!!

I have more questions, but I will ask them later.

Thank you!!!

 

[Liberian]

Seamus Sully,

We do a lot of armament testing in this part of Florida, so I’m sure there are some Big Bang scientists around … no, sorry, that was supposed to be a joke.

Something to remember is that the universe began the way it began. The Big Bang theory is a simplified description of how we think it happened. I believe it has been superseded by a more detailed description called “inflationary cosmology.” There is another description that has been floated in the last year or two in which an infinite number of parallel universes sprout from somewhere, but that is simply speculation at this point.

If there are any Big Bang scientists reading this thread, I want help in the area of Big Bang; or, perhaps, the time before the Big Bang.

Given that the Big Bang happened (according to the description) at the beginning of time, the phrase “the time before the Big Bang” has no meaning. God lives outside of our spacetime, outside of our universe; the name that I give to His equivalent of time is “eternity.” How it works I have no idea.

Concerning the Big Bang: from where did the energy and matter of the Big Bang come?

Scientifically speaking, I haven’t a clue. Regarding the truth as a “whole cloth” that must be consistent with itself, I think God said something about “let there be light.”

As of now, have we been able to observe the perimeters of the universe?

There are two things going on here. The first is that the universe is something analogous to a balloon being inflated, only with a three-dimensional surface instead of a two-dimensional surface. Every point on the surface of a balloon moves away from every other point, and there is no real center (of the surface) and no perimeter. Similarly, the universe has no perimeter.

The second thing is that for the first little while (speaking in terms of the age of the universe), the universe was opaque to light. The photons (particles of light) bounced off the particles of matter and went in every direction. Then when the universe became transparent, the light started traveling more-or-less unimpeded. This light that was suddenly unimpeded is the “cosmic microwave background radiation” that was discovered about half a century ago.

I’m not a scientist, but I am an aerospace engineer by trade and I have had an abiding interest in astronomy and space science since my youth.

• Liberian

 

[trth_skr]

…Concerning the Big Bang: from where did the energy and matter of the Big Bang come?

According to Stephen Hawking it was likely a “quantam fluctuation”. I.e., no explanation. An accident, just like human life.

As of now, have we been able to observe the perimeters of the universe? If there are scientific ideas concerning these questions, please give your evaluation of them.

Yes, but scientists will say no. Here is Max Tegmark (WMAP):

*Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center. Space continues outside the sphere, but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view. This censorship is frustrating, since if we could see merely 380000 light-years beyond it, we would behold the beginning of the universe. *

The ideas that we are not at the center is strictly an assumption. As Stepehn Hawking says:

…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe…

…There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe…

A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, New York, 1988, p. 42 as quoted in Galileo Was Wrong.

This is the same Stephen Hawking who said:

What place, then, for a creator?

I am not an “actual” scientists in this area. Those I quoted are.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[noma]

Concerning the Big Bang: from where did the energy and matter of the Big Bang come?

Since objects of near infinite density have a very long time-scale, one would say that time started with the big bang. There would be no “before”, so I find no interest in asking “from where did the energy and matter come?”. Rather, how did it start?

 

[noma]

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

By the way, I finished “Galileo was Wrong”. Some impressive notions. All the conclusions (and much of the science) are wrong.
There is no more religious impetus, even to believe in geocentrism. After all, I am now soon to be officially Anglican.

 

[trth_skr]

…There are two things going on here. The first is that the universe is something analogous to a balloon being inflated, only with a three-dimensional surface instead of a two-dimensional surface. Every point on the surface of a balloon moves away from every other point, and there is no real center (of the surface) and no perimeter. Similarly, the universe has no perimeter.

As I explained above, this is an assumption. The point on a 2-D surface (like a baloon) bit is another assumption of a possible geometry that satisfies the first assumption (i.e., we are not at the center, though appear to be). There are other geometries which could work. Einstein rejected one because though it explained the observations and the assumption (i.e., we appear to be at center, but assume not), it left open the possibility of a center.

…This light that was suddenly unimpeded is the “cosmic microwave background radiation” that was discovered about half a century ago.

• Liberian

The big bang theorists have claimed the CMB for this purpose.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[noma]

Einstein rejected one because though it explained the observations and the assumption (i.e., we appear to be at center, but assume not), it left open the possibility of a center.

And what are the details of this geometry?

The big bang theorists have claimed the CMB for this purpose.

Interestingly the CMB was claimed for this purpose even before it was discovered.

 

[trth_skr]

By the way, I finished “Galileo was Wrong”. Some impressive notions. All the conclusions (and much of the science) are wrong.

Nice statement. Can you be more specific?

There is no more religious impetus, even to believe in geocentrism. After all, I am now soon to be officially Anglican.

I am sorry to hear that. I hope you make your way back to Catholicism- regardless of whether you accept geocentrism as correct.

God Bless,

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blospot.com

 

[trth_skr]

And what are the details of this geometry?

It was a 4-D hypersphere embedded in 5-D Euclidian space, proposed by Willem de Sitter.

Interestingly the CMB was claimed for this purpose even before it was discovered.

What was predicted is outside the parameters of the CMB, but close in some respects. The expected temperature was 5-50 K, ont 2.7 K. The expected isotropies were much higher than observed. No dipole isotropy was predicted. The dipole has been “filtered” out of the current CMB map, even though the dipole signal is at least 1000X stronger than the remaining signal (dubious signal processing at best). Also the dipole (and higher order multipoles) is aligned with the equinoxes.

 

[thistle]

By the way, I finished “Galileo was Wrong”. Some impressive notions. All the conclusions (and much of the science) are wrong.
There is no more religious impetus, even to believe in geocentrism. After all, I am now soon to be officially Anglican.

Which part of the Anglican Church? It seems to be breaking up into even smaller pieces.

 

[rossum]

If there are any Big Bang scientists reading this thread, I want help in the area of Big Bang; or, perhaps, the time before the Big Bang.

I have a degree in theoretical physics, though I am not a Big Bang scientist (the word is cosmologist, and the subject is cosmology).

Concerning the Big Bang: from where did the energy and matter of the Big Bang come?

Matter and energy are the same thing, mass and energy can be converted into each other: E = mc^2. There are two general answers, first the total energy of the universe is zero. This is not as strange as it sounds, there is a lot of negative potential energy in separating galaxies from each other against the force of gravity. Zero total energy allows the universe to start as a quantum fluctuation that got big.

The second explanation is that the energy was present before the Big Bang. String theory is one version of this explanation, see The Myth of the Beginning of Time for a non-mathematical explanation.

As of now, have we been able to observe the perimeters of the universe? If there are scientific ideas concerning these questions, please give your evaluation of them.

We have not been able to observe the perimeter of the universe, except if you define black holes to be a perimeter. There are probable black holes within the observable universe. It is of course possible that there is no “perimeter” to the universe, just as the surface of the earth does not have a perimeter. In scientific terms it is finite but unbounded. Different models of the universe have different predictions about the existence or not of a perimeter.

If you have not already read Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” then you should. Steven Weinberg’s “The First Three Minutes” is also excellent. Both books are good introductions to cosmology.

rossum

 

[Seamus_Sully]

rossum

Myth of Time, bookmarked!

Is this cosmology considered physical science, philosophy or both?

I have read “A Brief History of Time” and I think I have read Weinberg.

If I have understood, there are now two major schools of thought in this area.

THANKS

I will be reading this.

 

[noma]

It was a 4-D hypersphere embedded in 5-D Euclidian space, proposed by Willem de Sitter.

And how does this geometry suggest a prefered center?

What was predicted is outside the parameters of the CMB, but close in some respects.

Exactly my point. A CMB was predicted. The bottom range it was given by Alpher, et Al, was .01 K, approximately. He estimated 5 K.

 

[noma]

Nice statement. Can you be more specific?

Yes, but I do not have the time to devote to the errors made. And I am quite sure that any efforts in correcting these mistakes, and in changing the minds of you or the authors, would be a waste of time that I don’t have.

 

[rossum]

Is this cosmology considered physical science, philosophy or both?

Cosmology is part of physics, though as with quantum mechanics philosophers are very interested in it as well. Most religions also come with a cosmology attached. For an introduction to the physics part of cosmology the Wikipedia article Physical Cosmology is a reasonable introduction, with plenty of book, links and references for you to look at.

I don’t know how much mathematical background you have, but if you want to get more deeply into this area you will have to understand mathematics at least up to differential equations. Tensors also useful for General Relativity. Cosmology is rocket science.

rossum

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let’s not forget that the BigBang Thoery helps support the Genesis creation story.

For thousands of years, non-Christitans and non-God believing people doubted the Genesis creation story asking how was it possible for light to be created on the first day but the stars were not created until a few days later?

It was said that light came from stars and therefore the Genesis creation story was fictional because the stars had to be created either first or at the same time as light but light could not have been created before the stars.

However, the big bang theory teaches that immediately after the big bang, the universe was filled with sup-atomic particles including photons lighting up everything.

Showing that thousands of years ago, even before it was understood how it could have been possible, the Genesis creation story still correct about light being created first.

 

[trth_skr]

Let’s not forget that the BigBang Thoery helps support the Genesis creation story.

For thousands of years, non-Christitans and non-God believing people doubted the Genesis creation story asking how was it possible for light to be created on the first day but the stars were not created until a few days later?

And non-Christians and non-God believing peolple will always find reasons to disbelieve. We need not change truth to bend to their wills.

I can create light in many ways- a spark, create plasma, fluoresence, rub sticks together. Why limit God to only being able to create light with stars?

Here’s an excerpt from chapter 3 of* Galileo Was Wrong *by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett (Ph.D.'s):

…Another example is Bernard Haisch, editor of
the prestigious Astrophysical Journal, who holds that
the Casimir Effect reveals the existence of a “zeropoint
field,” that is, that space is not a vacuum but is
filled with infinitesimally small particles (which we
will examine in depth later), which he envisions as the
scientific fulfillment of Genesis 1:3’s “Let there be
light,” constituting “the background sea of light whose
total energy is enormous.”
On the one hand, it is admirable to see these
famous scientists attempt to relate their cosmological
discoveries to the opening chapters of Genesis. On the
other hand, such efforts demonstrate science’s biased
presuppositions both in cosmology and in exegeting
Genesis. What is either casually overlooked or
purposely ignored in these overtures toward Genesis is
that Moses’ first words did not posit a great light
exploding into existence; rather, he is very explicit
about Earth’s primal existence. Moses’ description of
the Earth as being a formless and unadorned mass
shrouded in darkness with its surface covered by
water is stated in Genesis 1:1-2 for the express
purpose of indicating that the Earth existed *before *the
light came into being. The light had a function, which
was to dispel the darkness from the Earth, a simple
cause-and-effect relationship. If Weisskopf, Penzias,
Haisch or any other scientist wishes to crown his
theory with divine favor, then he must adhere to the
precise words that “the five books of Moses, the
Psalms, the Bible as a whole” have given to us rather
than foist their biased eisegesis on the biblical text. As
it stands, Genesis 1, literally interpreted, is
diametrically opposed to the Big Bang theory, since
the latter holds that the Earth did not come into
existence until some 8 billion years after the “light.”
Moreover, “…the Psalms *and *the Bible as a whole”
do not speak of the CMB as the absolute reference
point, since Scripture already granted that privileged
position to the Earth (cf. 1Ch 16:30; Ps 96:10; Ec 1:5);
and it was the firmament that was then expanded and
made to rotate with the heavenly bodies around the
Earth. Of course, if the above named scientists,
because of this disagreement with Scripture, were to
disown Moses as their ultimate guide and instead
insist on the CMB as the absolute frame of reference,
this should serve as the death-knell for Relativity
theory (which claims there is nothing even resembling
an absolute reference frame in space), but,
conveniently, that implication was quietly suppressed
in 1965 and was, shall we say, hushed up in polite
society…

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Sir_Knight]

And non-Christians and non-God believing peolple will always find reasons to disbelieve. We need not change truth to bend to their wills

Exactly my point. For thousands of years, the Genesis creation story was viewed as a fairy tale and now it appears that we were right all along.

 

[noma]

Both Genesis and Evolution can be true. They address different questions, and so cannot interfere with each other.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Would it be even possible to see the perimeter of the universe if light from it has not yet reached us.