The Big Bang Theory

[jman507]

even the scientists have to learn that theories aren’t the truth! Scientifically, even if something had lots of evidence to back it up, it may not always be true. (re: evolution). Just like all too many innocent people are sent to prison; it works, but not perfectly. It took my astronomy teacher a long time to admit this, but finally he said to the class, “it’s just a theory! But it’s most likely true.” He also said that he believes his mom loves him, but it’s not a scientific fact. It’s not scientifically proven that God exists, but science needs evidence."

Astronomy class wasn’t a total loss, though. I accept that perhaps the Big Bang theory is true, but like my teacher said, “we don’t know!” where the concentration of matter for the Big Bang came from. Wouldn’t it be funny if science were to eventually prove that God created that Big Bang matter? And perhaps God is that “dark matter”! We can’t see Him, we can’t see dark matter…Just a thought…

The scientific method is one that tries to use inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is not able to say what is true. Deductive can attempt that, but it wouldn’t be very useful to apply to observable things in the world that science attempts to take on. The scientific method tries by trail and error to discern possiblities. Once you get to a place where you’ve come up with a awfully sophisitacted model, that seems to work, it’s easy to think of it as a practical conclusion. I’ve concluded I know which house is mine in the neighborhood. I’d say it has some relation to what is the truth, but what that is I don’t know.

I guess as you said theories aren’t the truth(, and for that matter they are not false either. You should ask what is the purpose of theory.) So by that reasoning, science could not prove that it is true that God created the Big Bang matter. The best it could do is to exclude all other possiblities, which I doubt would be possible either. I am sure their are possiblities that are beyond are grasp of thinking or testing, and if there are not I don’t know how to go about proving that either.

 

[Ghosty]

I just wanted to point out that the Big Bang Theory was actually developed by the Catholic priest and physicist Fr. Lemaitre.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Peace and God bless!

 

[heisenburg]

Ani…

Greetings

I want to answer your points in reverse. I want to answer the conservation of energy definition you requested first as it answers the heat/entropy problem.

Again, I am sure you are familiar with it, so this is really just for the sake of the readers Conservation of Mass and Energy is essentially the statement that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. If there is a super law, this is probably one of them. Anyway… mass and energy are interchangeable (though this is odd concept for many) it is simply e=mc^2 (rest energy). A prime example of this is the Atom bomb. This is a direct example of converting Mass into Energy.

Anyway…

Your issue with heat.
Simply put, because of conservation of mass/energy, when a new membrane is created because of collision, heat is given off more then likely because of it. However, because of the law, if heat is added to one place, it must be taken from another, therefore, the net heat gained to the total system is still zero. if the net heat is still 0, that means the entropy still remains zero. This energy comes from its parent membranes, and is given to the child membrane, however, the total change in energy is still zero.

Hope that helps…

In Christ

 

[Mr.Ruggerio]

However, though i completely agree that Quantum Mechanics is… um… odd… it is verifiable, and testable. Yes there are aspects about QM that make heads go around like imaginary wave forms and the concept of the cat in the box, BUT… they can be tested…

An electron microscope is a classic example of QM at work. Newtonian Physics says it shouldn’t, but QM says it will, and it does…

Not tearing apart what you are saying, just commenting on just because we cant fully comprehend something in nature doesn’t make it NOT true

Anyway

In Christ

I disagree with your assertion about QM being verifiable and testable. At best it is indirectly so and even then uncertainties persist. Anyway the theory is only partially complete at this stage and may never be fully unified. What passes for elaboration now days in QM typically requires postulating extra dimensions and still further sub-atomic particles. If anything, QM is moving away from unification, not towards it.

Of course, the problem is not that QM lacks theorists. There are plenty of them and it seems everyone of them is currently working on his next book. QM lacks experimental resources, such as the high energy levels needed to do good research in this area. But then, that only proves my point about QM not being truly verifiable and testable.

 

[heisenburg]

With respect, a big part of QM deals directly with the idea of uncertainties and probabilities. The Book i used in college started the whole thing by using ‘flipping a coin’ as an introduction. For example, how many times will you land on heads if you flip a coin 10 times…

Most people say 5, but in actuality, there will be some variance. Sometimes it will be 4, sometimes 8, sometimes none. Part of QM is equating what those probabilities are. It gets far more complicated very quickly once you start looking at things like the atom, and thus, you have things like Schroedinger’s Equation. But it is testable.

A second example, lets say you have an electron that requires 100 newtons to remove it from an atom. The Electron is only capable of 2. Will the electron ever be freed. Most people say no. however, there is an equation says yes. It can be tested, and shown yes. Thats how an electron Microscope works.

QM is hard in any and every aspect, but its far from untestable. QM is NOT just a series of postulates that people think up while sitting around a camp fire. However, we also need to be careful with the whole observable aspect too… some people take it to extremes and say “well have you ever seen X” But thats not how it works.
No one has ever seen oxygen. but we know its there.
No one has ever seen a Proton, but we know its there
No one has ever seen the center of the earth, but we know its Hot.

Indirect observations are just as important. Just because we cannot directly see or feel something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. True, it takes a lot more indirect observations to show something, but when there is enough; thats when theories develop. If you really think about it. There is very little in science that we ‘know’ that doesn’t have some level of indirectness to it. Since no one can see at the Atomic (and therefore quantum) level, we have to look at the indirect evidence. Is it still developing? sure… all science is. That doesn’t mean its false though. QM is simply the best explanation we have right now for what is going on at the atomic level.

on an aside
I may be away for a few days but I look forward to continuing next week

In Christ

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I’m wondering if those discussing germ theory can start a new thread so that this one does not get derailed.

Not to say that germ theory is not worthy of discussion. It seems very interesting. But it is off topic on this thread.

Perhaps the germ theory folks can ask the moderator to split off the germ theory posts from this thread and add them to the new thread?

Thank you.

 

[Diddi]

I just wanted to point out that the Big Bang Theory was actually developed by the Catholic priest and physicist Fr. Lemaitre.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Peace and God bless!

Ahhhh, I wanted to point that out, but you’re right.

To understand how the Big Bang Theory developed, all a layman has to know is three things. It’s really quite simple.

I. First, science discovered that each of the chemical elements of the Periodic Table when excited (as by heat or electricity) would glow in narrow bands of light. The pattern of these bands, for each element, is called its bright line spectrum (a type of emission spectrum). To see it, you would need to pass the light through a prism to separate the colors. The lines of the bright-line spectrum would be very narrow bands of color, each at a specific wavelength and would form a very recognizable pattern, the fingerprint of that element.

Soon after that, science discovered that if the same chemical element were placed as a gas in a chamber between a light source (containing all wavelengths) and the prism, that element would absorb the light at the exact same wavelengths as that element’s bright-line spectrum but the lines seen through the prism would be black. They called this a dark-line spectrum (or absorption spectrum). See the following web page, which shows a continuous light spectrum, a bright-line spectrum and a dark-line spectrum.
users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/kinds_of_spectra.htm

Of course, with this discovery, it was natural for scientists to look for bright-line spectra and dark-line spectra in astral light sources. Here is a high-resolution image of the dark line spectra of our sun. It is very good and if you analyzed it carefully, you could find the fingerprints of all the elements that make up our sun. (Give it time to load.)
answers.com/topic/high-resolution-solar-spectrum-jpg

ii. The second thing you need to know is the Doppler effect. If an object emits a sound when both you (the observer) and it (the sound emitter) are standing still, you will hear a tone depending on the wavelengths (frequencies) of sound emitted. If the same object were moving toward you, the waves you hear would be bunched up (and have a higher frequency) as they were formed because of the movement and the pitch would go up the scale. You would hear a higher note. If the same sound emitter were moving away from you, the opposite would happen, the waves would be spread out (have a lower frequency), and you would hear a lower note. We have all heard this Doppler effect when a train or car passes us by. Check out this site.
fearofphysics.com/Sound/dopwhy1.html

Of course, the same thing happens with light because light is emitted as waves. If light were emitted by a source coming towards you, the Doppler effect would shift the light to a higher frequency. Since blue light is on the high frequency (short wavelength) end of the spectrum, we call this blue-shifted light. If the light source were moving away from you, it would be red-shifted light (since red light has the longest wavelength of visible light).

iii. Finally, we put these two together and voila, we can look into space and tell whether an object is moving toward us or away from us by the shift in the positions of the fingerprints (spectral lines) of its elements. We can also tell how fast it is moving by the amount of shift. (We can even tell which way the object is spinning by the difference in the shift from one edge to the other.)

It turns out that our nearest galactic neighbor, the Andromeda Galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way (our galaxy) but all galaxies (except our local cluster of galaxies) are moving away. Not only are most galaxies moving away, it turns out that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away. Think of it. If the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away, if we look back in time, they must have all originated from the same point in space. In 1929, Father Georges-Henri Lemaître published this conjecture that we all know as the Big Bang Theory.

See also:
astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/brightline.htm
astro.virginia.edu/class/majewski/astr313/lectures/spectroscopy/spec.html

 

[Ani_Ibi]

heisenburg:

Your issue with heat. Simply put, because of conservation of mass/energy, when a new membrane is created because of collision, heat is given off more then likely because of it.

Again for those who are clinging on with their fingernails : let’s start with the two kinds of energy. (heisenburg, please correct me when I am wrong. It’s been a while since school and I’ll be a little fatigued for a few days. Thanks.)

Potential energy and kinetic energy.

Let’s take the example of a satellite whose orbit is decaying. In orbit, its potential energy is maximal (because its distance from the center of gravity (earth) is maximal). Potential energy is the relative position of one object to another.

When the satellite’s orbit decays (that has another explanation and we don’t need to go there), the satellite falls. Falling is kinetic energy.

When the satellite hits earth, its potential energy is minimal (because its distance from the center of gravity (earth) is minimal), but its kinetic energy is maximal.

That kinetic energy has to go somewhere, but there is no more room for it to continue as kinetic energy. Why? Because the earth is stopping any further downward motion. So the kinetic energy is converted into…

… heat!

Hence a horrendous explosion in someone’s backyard!

To review: what caused that heat? The potential energy of the satellite was converted into kinetic energy by falling. The earth stopped the satellite. The kinetic energy was converted into heat because the satellite ran out of falling room.



Now that example was about the force of gravity. Gravity is the main factor with big things like satellites, planets, stars, and galaxies.

There are other forces however. In addition to the force of gravity there are the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.These latter three forces are main factors with small things. Sub-atomic particles.

But the principle is the same. Potential energy > kinetic energy > no more falling room > heat! That’s what happens in an atomic explosion!

heisenburg:

However, because of the law [of conservation of energy], if heat is added to one place, it must be taken from another, therefore, the net heat gained to the total system is still zero.

Yes, I understand you, but that is a whole other operation. Membrane collisions imho follow exactly the same principle as the falling satellite.

heisenburg:

… if the net heat is still 0, that means the entropy still remains zero. This energy comes from its parent membranes, and is given to the child membrane, however, the total change in energy is still zero.

OK. OK. I’m following you. You are not seeing Membranes as particles. You are seeing Membranes as energy. So, what determines the exchange of energy? I don’t see why energy would need to be exchanged at all? And if energy was exchanged then, as you point out, the net energy in the Membrane realm would be zero.

But your explanation doesn’t demonstrate how Membrane collision causes the birth of new universes. And we need that explanation.

Here goes. We know that light as waves behaves like energy. We know that light also behaves as particles. (Imagine light as wave packets. The wave part is the energy. The packaging of the waves is the particles.)

The particle ‘personality’ of the Membranes: let’s look at that. OK?

When Membranes collide as particles, then we can expect the same kind of event as the satellite falling: kinetic energy > no more falling room > heat!

If there is a super law in the Membrane realm that says that entropy must always be zero, then the heat has to go somewhere outside the Membrane realm. And hence a new universe is created. That new universe is the dumping ground for entropy.

Waddya say, chief? :dancing:

If we can agree on this, then we can begin to examine why time is different between our universe and the Membrane realm. And we can once again gaze into the eyes of God.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Great job explaining, Diddi. I like the way you link to sources, Diddi. It makes your explanations clearer for us. Thank you.

Diddi:

Not only are most galaxies moving away, it turns out that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away.

Just a little additional information on distance and time:

Let’s assume the origin of our universe happened at the Big Bang. The Big Bang was many things, but for now think of it as an explosion. When we need to look at other features of the Big Bang, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. OK?

So when matter shoots out from the explosion, it moves fast. With time, it slows down. (Of course this assumes that there is some force slowing them down. Like dark matter. But let’s not go there right now. OK? Matter is slowing down after the Big Bang.)

So it follows that those galaxies which are moving the fastest are also the galaxies which are the ones most distant from us both in space and in time. Because we are looking into the past and therefore we have had all that time to move away from the start point of the Big Bang where those initially fast-moving galaxies are.

Think of the time it took for our galaxy to form. Then the stars to be ignited. Then the stellar dust to gather into planets. That’s a lot of time (our kind of time).

The fastest galaxies are the galaxies closest in time to the Big Bang. The slowest galaxies are closest in time to us.

When we are looking out into the universe we are not only looking at distances we are looking through time into the past.

OK. That was a dumb explanation. Sorry. :blushing: :crying: Somebody else try it? Thank you.

 

[Diddi]

I’m wondering if those discussing germ theory can start a new thread so that this one does not get derailed.

Not to say that germ theory is not worthy of discussion. It seems very interesting. But it is off topic on this thread.

Perhaps the germ theory folks can ask the moderator to split off the germ theory posts from this thread and add them to the new thread?

Thank you.

The germ theory comments were very on topic. Please don’t let them be removed from this thread!
"
One of the arguments against the Big Bang Theory is that it is “just a theory” and not fact. This shows a lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. The discussion that included the germ theory, if followed carefully, logically proved that the “it’s just a theory” argument we see so often is not worth the pixels it is written in.

The Big Bang Theory is actually a very good theory and is well supported by data. The facts it is based on are real, but I think the theory is just an illusion of perspective much like the flat-earth theory and the geocentric theory of the universe are now known to be. Some day, children in school may be taught to mock the Big Bang advocates just like they are today taught to mock the “flat-worlders.”

 

[Diddi]

Great job explaining, Diddi. I like the way you link to sources, Diddi. It makes your explanations clearer for us. Thank you.

Just a little additional information on distance and time:

Let’s assume the origin of our universe happened at the Big Bang. The Big Bang was many things, but for now think of it as an explosion. When we need to look at other features of the Big Bang, we will cross that bridge when we get to it. OK?

So when matter shoots out from the explosion, it moves fast. With time, it slows down. (Of course this assumes that there is some force slowing them down. Like dark matter. But let’s not go there right now. OK? Matter is slowing down after the Big Bang.)

So it follows that those galaxies which are moving the fastest are also the galaxies which are the ones most distant from us both in space and in time. Because we are looking into the past and therefore we have had all that time to move away from the start point of the Big Bang where those initially fast-moving galaxies are.

Think of the time it took for our galaxy to form. Then the stars to be ignited. Then the stellar dust to gather into planets. That’s a lot of time (our kind of time).

The fastest galaxies are the galaxies closest in time to the Big Bang. The slowest galaxies are closest in time to us.

When we are looking out into the universe we are not only looking at distances we are looking through time into the past.

OK. That was a dumb explanation. Sorry. :blushing: :crying: Somebody else try it? Thank you.

Not dumb at all. I think you may be closer to the truth than you realize. As I said above, I believe that the Big Bang Theory, although based on facts, is mostly an illusion of perspective and you have hit on part of the basis of the illusion. We are looking back in time.

Think of this. 1. No matter what direction you look, the galaxies that are farthest away are moving fastest and, 2. they because they are farthest away, they are the ones that are farthest back in time. In fact, we now can see galaxies as they existed within a mere billion years of the beginning of the bang itself IN EVERY DIRECTION!

Run this through your gazebo: The Big Bang therefore postulates that the middle of the big band, where it began, is on the outside of what we can see and the part of the outside that we live in is the middle of what we see. The theory says that this is what it would look like for us in any part of our galaxy. Hard to stretch the ol’ mind around, isn’t it?

By the way, if your hypothesis (that our looking farther into the past as we look farther into space could create the illusion of a big bang) was just a hip shot (made on the spur of the moment), you’re good. Nice.

 

[freesoulhope]

Some day, children in school may be taught to mock the Big Bang advocates just like they are today taught to mock the “flat-worlders.”

It is impossible that this will ever happen. It is possible for us to build a ship and fly out in to space and see that the world is round; but it is impossible to go back in time to before the big bang, only to realize to are amazement, and amusement, that we are really the rectal waste of some super galactic animal’s rectum . Shivers go down my spine to think it; that all this time we have been reasoning are selves back to… well, you know. Time began with the big bang; there is no before.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Time began with the big bang; there is no before.

The arrow of time – linear time – began with the Big Bang.

Before is undefined. But, as I have pointed out, the universe came from somewhere. And the Big Bang – heat release and entropy transfer – was part of the means of that coming from somewhere.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

By the way, if your hypothesis (that our looking farther into the past as we look farther into space could create the illusion of a big bang) was just a hip shot (made on the spur of the moment), you’re good. Nice.

That was not my hypothesis. But you are onto something. Could you flesh out what you are onto so that we can follow it please? Why do you believe that looking out into space creates the illusion of a big bang?

 

[freesoulhope]

The arrow of time – linear time – began with the Big Bang.

Before is undefined. But, as I have pointed out, the universe came from somewhere. And the Big Bang – heat release and entropy transfer – was part of the means of that coming from somewhere.

No doubt. It all came from somewhere; i am just pointing out that, what ever it is that the big-bang came from, it is un-likley to have the same demensions or properties as the universe; unless you believe in the multi universe theory.

Peace.

Its actuall illogical to speak of the universe comming from anywhere, as it would the suggest that the place from where it came from follows the same laws as are universe.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

freesoulhope:

No doubt. It all came from somewhere;

OK.

freesoulhope:

i am just pointing out that, what ever it is that the big-bang came from, it is un-likley to have the same demensions or properties as the universe;

Several of us have attempted to demonstrate this.

freesoulhope:

unless you believe in the multi universe theory.

No. Because of assuming the existence of the multiverse.

freesoulhope:

Its actuall illogical to speak of the universe comming from anywhere, as it would the suggest that the place from where it came from follows the same laws as are universe.

Why is this illogical? Why does it suggest that the place from where it came from follows the same laws as our universe? To answer these questions, it might be useful to go back on this thread; read the posts on flexiverse, multiverse, and entropy – then trace the logical steps set out. Thank you.

 

[jman507]

It is impossible that this will ever happen. It is possible for us to build a ship and fly out in to space and see that the world is round; but it is impossible to go back in time to before the big bang, only to realize to are amazement, and amusement, that we are really the rectal waste of some super galactic animal’s rectum . Shivers go down my spine to think it; that all this time we have been reasoning are selves back to… well, you know. Time began with the big bang; there is no before.

I think one thing to always keep in mind, we can always be wrong. Information that could render this all moot could be out there. It can always be occluded from us. Part of the reason for the thought of a flat-earth was due to a lack of sophistication to know or realize better. It was not possible to build a space ship at the time of the old theory. We ourselves might lack the sophistication of being able to observe the proper information to reason a truer scientific theory to nature. The means to obseve that might be impossible right now, or also it could have not have been thought yet. That does not mean not to try, reason with what you have, and have the understanding more could come out to prove your reasoning wrong.

 

[freesoulhope]

Why is this illogical? Why does it suggest that the place from where it came from follows the same laws as our universe? To answer these questions, it might be useful to go back on this thread; read the posts on flexiverse, multiverse, and entropy – then trace the logical steps set out. Thank you.

The great mis-understanding

You miss understand what it is that I’m saying.

First of all, your among the many philosophers on this thread who write in a way that is unintelligible to me; not because it’s unintelligible, but because it’s an entirely different language to what I am use to. This unfortunately leaves the common man skipping past the important, and I’m sure, very intelligent things you have to offer. Also, if its not toooooo snobish of me to mention, a “Times New Roman” font is easier on the eyes.

Secondly, keep your hair on; once it’s gone you can’t get it back.

Before The Big Bang?

Thirdly, all I’m saying is, to speak of a before, it is as if your speaking of a Big bang being a product of time; something happening within time and space. Unless one holds to a multi-verse theory, we cannot speak of a before, and God cannot be thought of as preceding in time; assuming we believe that God acts outside of time, and acknowledging that a true God cannot be in time as if to say he is a product of it, otherwise he is not truly God and time itself is left unaccounted for. Unless one believes that he made time and space first, before the Big Bang; but I’m not sure that such a concept makes any sense or does Gods nature any justice.

I am aware however that this may have already been mentioned, and if so, then I apologize for the intrusion.

The multiverse theory

By the way I have a refutation of the multi-verse theory that id like you to comment on.

Some of the atheists that I have come across through cyber space seem to be advocating the multi-verse theory as scientific; they are waving it around as an alternative or a refutation of the un-caused cause argument.

My objection to this is: If are universe is a cause of another universe which in turn is a cause of another, so on so fourth, then one has to admit that each universe must be running by similar laws in order to be the cause of each other; since we can see that a “cause”, in its self, is a product of a universe that is like ours. Therefore the multi-verse theory only pushes God back in the line of causes; and one could say that, The prior universe’s had to be actualized in order for our universe to arise as a possibly inhabitable universe (something like a galactic evolution of universal laws); not to mention that the multi-verse theory in its self doesn’t account for were all the universe’s came from in the first place considering they all have a cause.

This may be a poor argument, but, id like to her what you think about it; or maybe you could add something to it. Do you want to open another thread?

 

[freesoulhope]

I think one thing to always keep in mind, we can always be wrong.

Yes; but we can never know what happened before the big bang, because there was no before, and that is precisely where we have to go " as scientists" in order to find out what happened; therefore “emprical science” will never find a theory that conforms to nature as we percieve it, because there was nothing, as we know it, before the bigbang.

When scientist speak of a unifying theory of everything, i suspect they are speaking about a theory that explains everything through natural laws; through nature, because they want nature to explain its self. That is why they will never find it unless they consider a inteligent designer.

peace

 

[freesoulhope]

maslfl;Sfj;SDjg@:JKb?