Big Bang: Whodunit?

[usfan]

Most people believe the present theory of a 'big bang', for the origins of the universe. Here are some points to ponder, about this theory:

1. Who or What initiated this big bang, compressing the universe into a small size, then exploding it into the universe?
2. What is the difference between a 'big bang', and a Creation event?
3. How does light appear to us, which would take 'millions of years!' to get to us from the far reaches of the universe?

I have been referred to this link, as the most recent authoritative data behind the theory of big bang:

WMAP 9 Year Mission Results

WMAP's "baby picture of the universe" maps the afterglow of the hot, young universe at a time when it was only 375,000 years old, when it was a tiny fraction of its current age of 13.77 billion years. The patterns in this baby picture were used to limit what could have possibly happened earlier, and what happened in the billions of year since that early time. The (mis-named) "big bang" framework of cosmology, which posits that the young universe was hot and dense, and has been expanding and cooling ever since, is now solidly supported, according to WMAP.

WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.

Now, if a godless universe could set aside all laws of physics, and expand 'by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second', then how is that any different than positing a Creator, who did the same thing?

Why the belief in '13.7 billion years!', as the age of the universe, if this phenomenal expansion could do it in 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second'?

What natural processes could have compressed the universe into a size of a pea, then explode it to the expanses of the universe in 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second'?

It seems to me, that the faith needed to believe this happened spontaneously, without Divine Intervention, is just as great, if not greater, than believing in a Creator.

There is either an unknown, physical law defying natural process that could do this thing, or an unknown, physical law defying Creator Who did it.

Which belief is more reasonable? Why would believing in atheistic naturalism be 'Science!', but believing in a Creator is 'Religion!'? Both are leaps of faith, requiring an assumption of some physical law defying 'Cause' event.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Most people believe the present theory of a 'big bang', for the origins of the universe. Here are some points to ponder, about this theory:

1. Who or What initiated this big bang, compressing the universe into a small size, then exploding it into the universe?

Why was something needed to? As far back as we can go, the laws of physics break down, as the entire Universe when reduced to a singularity existed in a quantum state and thus we have no reason to assume it was subject to the same laws of physics as we understand them today, such as natural cause and effect. To ask this question is kind of akin to asking "How long did the Universe exist before time existed?"

2. What is the difference between a 'big bang', and a Creation event?

Depends entirely on how you define a "creation event".

3. How does light appear to us, which would take 'millions of years!' to get to us from the far reaches of the universe?

Because the light has had millions of years to travel. Also, the majority of the light we see isn't coming from the far reaches of the Universe, it's coming from our relatively localized area of space.

I have been referred to this link, as the most recent authoritative data behind the theory of big bang:

WMAP 9 Year Mission Results

WMAP's "baby picture of the universe" maps the afterglow of the hot, young universe at a time when it was only 375,000 years old, when it was a tiny fraction of its current age of 13.77 billion years. The patterns in this baby picture were used to limit what could have possibly happened earlier, and what happened in the billions of year since that early time. The (mis-named) "big bang" framework of cosmology, which posits that the young universe was hot and dense, and has been expanding and cooling ever since, is now solidly supported, according to WMAP.

WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.

Now, if a godless universe could set aside all laws of physics, and expand 'by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second', then how is that any different than positing a Creator, who did the same thing?

It isn't. The only difference is that we can test for one and not the other. If you believe a God did the expanding, fine. But we can't really test for that (yet, at least). All we know is that an expansion occurred.

Why the belief in '13.7 billion years!', as the age of the universe, if this phenomenal expansion could do it in 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second'?

This expansion only occurred in "the very earliest stages", as it says in your link, so therefore it is talking about the universe expanding from a singularity (which was smaller than a subatomic particle) and expanding trillions upon trillions of times from that very rapidly. It doesn't mean it always expanded that quickly.

What natural processes could have compressed the universe into a size of a pea, then explode it to the expanses of the universe in 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second'?

It didn't need to compress it. All we know is that the Universe was in that state before expanding. We have no way of knowing what state the Universe was in prior to this (if "prior to this" is even possible), or if the Universe simply had "always" been in that state until the expansion. And once again, your link does not say that it went from the singularity to the scale we see now in "a trillionth of a trillionth of a second". It just says that in the very early stages it expanded FROM that singularity to being trillions of times that size at that particular time. It doesn't mean it went from a singularity to "full size" in that time, just that it grew rapidly in that time.

It seems to me, that the faith needed to believe this happened spontaneously, without Divine Intervention, is just as great, if not greater, than believing in a Creator.

How can it take more faith to believe something happened than to believe something happened and we know exactly what the cause of it is?

There is either an unknown, physical law defying natural process that could do this thing, or an unknown, physical law defying Creator Who did it.

Which belief is more reasonable? Why would believing in atheistic naturalism be 'Science!', but believing in a Creator is 'Religion!'? Both are leaps of faith, requiring an assumption of some physical law defying 'Cause' event.

Believing in a creator isn't "religion", it's just theism - and athesitic naturalism isn't "science" either. And there's nothing necessarily inconsistent with believing in a creator and accepting the physical laws and evidences of the Universe. It's just that, scientifically speaking, we have no solid reason to confirm that this is true. To assert that a Creator is behind the Universe is not scientific because it has no scientific basis, but that doesn't mean that a theist who believes that there is a Creator, but also accepts all of the science about the Universe, is being unreasonable or "not scientific", provided they understand that said belief isn't scientific in nature.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Which belief is more reasonable? Why would believing in atheistic naturalism be 'Science!', but believing in a Creator is 'Religion!'? Both are leaps of faith, requiring an assumption of some physical law defying 'Cause' event.

Mostly, I have no clue how the Universe began. But this last paragraph of yours interested me, so I thought I might address it.

Science is a process, not an answer. So...if all we have is a scientific hypothesis, we have science...but not an answer.

Religion tends to have an answer, but only rarely is it falsifiable.

That's the difference.

 

[Polymath257]

Most people believe the present theory of a 'big bang', for the origins of the universe. Here are some points to ponder, about this theory:

1. Who or What initiated this big bang, compressing the universe into a small size, then exploding it into the universe?

Why do you think there was something that initiated it? If time itself began at the Big Bang (which, according to the standard theory, it did), then there was no initiator.

2. What is the difference between a 'big bang', and a Creation event?

Well, among other things, Creation events are usually thought of as being caused by an intelligence.

3. How does light appear to us, which would take 'millions of years!' to get to us from the far reaches of the universe?

I don't understand your question. It appears as light.

I have been referred to this link, as the most recent authoritative data behind the theory of big bang:

WMAP 9 Year Mission Results

WMAP's "baby picture of the universe" maps the afterglow of the hot, young universe at a time when it was only 375,000 years old, when it was a tiny fraction of its current age of 13.77 billion years. The patterns in this baby picture were used to limit what could have possibly happened earlier, and what happened in the billions of year since that early time. The (mis-named) "big bang" framework of cosmology, which posits that the young universe was hot and dense, and has been expanding and cooling ever since, is now solidly supported, according to WMAP.

WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.

Now, if a godless universe could set aside all laws of physics, and expand 'by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second', then how is that any different than positing a Creator, who did the same thing?

Well, it *isn't* setting aside the known laws of physics. In fact, it was *through* the laws of physics that this very rapid expansion was predicted.

Why the belief in '13.7 billion years!', as the age of the universe, if this phenomenal expansion could do it in 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second'?

Mostly because if you use the known laws of physics and trace back, that is the age that you get from the evidence we have.

What natural processes could have compressed the universe into a size of a pea, then explode it to the expanses of the universe in 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second'?

Why do you think there was such a process?

It seems to me, that the faith needed to believe this happened spontaneously, without Divine Intervention, is just as great, if not greater, than believing in a Creator.

And what evidence is there for a creator? What does the assumption of a creator help to explain *in detail*?

There is either an unknown, physical law defying natural process that could do this thing, or an unknown, physical law defying Creator Who did it.

It seems your understanding of the physics is lacking.

Which belief is more reasonable? Why would believing in atheistic naturalism be 'Science!', but believing in a Creator is 'Religion!'? Both are leaps of faith, requiring an assumption of some physical law defying 'Cause' event.

Nope. No 'law defying event' is required or assumed in the physics. That is sort of the point. The *known* laws, when applied, give the results claimed.

 

[Terry Sampson]

if a godless universe could set aside all laws of physics,

IMO,

1. Godless universes don't set aside all laws of physics; indeed, it's physically impossible. Imaginary universes, however, can and do all the time.
2. There is only one universe. It has no boundaries, has always existed, and always will exist. Its parts are always in motion, always have been and always will be. New planets, stars, and galaxies form; old planets, stars, and galaxies fade away. Sometimes collisions between them cause them to fade away faster than they would have if there were no collision.
   
3. The Big Bang is a crock of malarkey:
   
4. Creation, out of nothing, is an old folktale.
5. Marvelous things happen in a boundless, eternal universe; miracles don't.

 

[Phaedrus]

Reasonably, the answer should always be I don't know until it becomes empirically available. That includes the existence of any deity, instead of claiming knowledge based on mythology and philosophy.

 

[Polymath257]

1. The Big Bang is a crock of malarkey:

Hmm...and what, precisely, do you think the Big Bng theory says and why it is a crock?

 

[usfan]

Nope. No 'law defying event' is required or assumed in the physics. That is sort of the point. The *known* laws, when applied, give the results claimed.

..let me see the repeatable science behind the conjecture of the universe expanding trillions fold, in trillions fold of a second.. this is possible naturally?

 

[Stevicus]

It seems to me, that the faith needed to believe this happened spontaneously, without Divine Intervention, is just as great, if not greater, than believing in a Creator.

There is either an unknown, physical law defying natural process that could do this thing, or an unknown, physical law defying Creator Who did it.

Which belief is more reasonable? Why would believing in atheistic naturalism be 'Science!', but believing in a Creator is 'Religion!'? Both are leaps of faith, requiring an assumption of some physical law defying 'Cause' event.

I don't see that simply believing in a "Creator" is religion, in and of itself. We don't know what caused the universe to be set in motion - but there's no reason to leap to any conclusions either.

If someone says "Maybe there was an Intelligent Designer or a Creator that did it," that's just a guess. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.

The trouble with religion is that it goes way, way beyond that. It goes from "maybe it's true" to "IT IS TRUE! And anyone who doesn't believe it will surely go to Hell. So get your butt down to church and tithe regularly!"

 

[Terry Sampson]

Hmm...and what, precisely, do you think the Big Bng theory says and why it is a crock?

• Not so precisely, it says that the universe initially was a singularity: i.e. an infinitely dense point of something (i.e. matter, space, and time or spacetime), which began to expand and has been expanding ever since it began to expand. The singularity has no "outside", only "inside". The age of the universe is calculated based on its rate of expansion.
• Why do I think the theory is a crock? Because, as I understand it, the theory is rooted in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (a.k.a. General Theory of Relativity [GTR]) which builds on/adds to his Theory of Special Relativity (a.k.a. Special Theory of Relativity [STR]). And, in STR, the doctrine of length contraction is a conjecture without evidence and in conflict with a similar doctrine of length contraction believed to be true by Neo-Lorentzian quasi-relativists, which is more correct than STR's version but still wrong because the Neo-Lorentzians don't subscribe to Newton's Absolute Space and Absolute Time.
• Note that, although I am a self-acknowledged theist, not once did I hire a god to "get things done" in anything written in this thread.

 

[`mud]

If the BB ever existed, after any `void`, where was `God`, while doing it.
How could `God` be anywhere ? In what `void` did He exist ?
Simple minds................................Simple thoughts

 

[Phaedrus]

If the BB ever existed, after any `void`, where was `God`, while doing it.
How could `God` be anywhere ? In what `void` did He exist ?
Simple minds................................Simple thoughts

The void of the theistic mind.

 

[Polymath257]

..let me see the repeatable science behind the conjecture of the universe expanding trillions fold, in trillions fold of a second.. this is possible neturally?

Since it is based on general relativity (which is well tested) and the possibility of a spin zero boson (which the Higg's particle is an example of), yes, it is quite testable. It does not have to be repeatable in the way you seem to think. Instead the basics (general relativity, for example), need to be repeatable. The basic data (background radiation) needs to be observable repeatedly, and things like baryonic oscillations are predicted, which gives the required testability.

 

[exchemist]

Most people believe the present theory of a 'big bang', for the origins of the universe. Here are some points to ponder, about this theory:

1. Who or What initiated this big bang, compressing the universe into a small size, then exploding it into the universe?
2. What is the difference between a 'big bang', and a Creation event?
3. How does light appear to us, which would take 'millions of years!' to get to us from the far reaches of the universe?

I have been referred to this link, as the most recent authoritative data behind the theory of big bang:

WMAP 9 Year Mission Results

WMAP's "baby picture of the universe" maps the afterglow of the hot, young universe at a time when it was only 375,000 years old, when it was a tiny fraction of its current age of 13.77 billion years. The patterns in this baby picture were used to limit what could have possibly happened earlier, and what happened in the billions of year since that early time. The (mis-named) "big bang" framework of cosmology, which posits that the young universe was hot and dense, and has been expanding and cooling ever since, is now solidly supported, according to WMAP.

WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.

Now, if a godless universe could set aside all laws of physics, and expand 'by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second', then how is that any different than positing a Creator, who did the same thing?

Why the belief in '13.7 billion years!', as the age of the universe, if this phenomenal expansion could do it in 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second'?

What natural processes could have compressed the universe into a size of a pea, then explode it to the expanses of the universe in 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second'?

It seems to me, that the faith needed to believe this happened spontaneously, without Divine Intervention, is just as great, if not greater, than believing in a Creator.

There is either an unknown, physical law defying natural process that could do this thing, or an unknown, physical law defying Creator Who did it.

Which belief is more reasonable? Why would believing in atheistic naturalism be 'Science!', but believing in a Creator is 'Religion!'? Both are leaps of faith, requiring an assumption of some physical law defying 'Cause' event.

Yes, but you think this way because you don't know any physics.

Most probably, too, I suspect you studiously avoid learning any, in case it might cause you to doubt your simple beliefs.

 

[Howard Is]

Why do you think there was something that initiated it? If time itself began at the Big Bang (which, according to the standard theory, it did), then there was no initiator.

Time was under a lot of pressure and needed some space to get things sorted out.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why do I think the theory is a crock? Because, as I understand it, the theory is rooted in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (a.k.a. General Theory of Relativity [GTR]) which builds on/adds to his Theory of Special Relativity (a.k.a. Special Theory of Relativity [STR]). And, in STR, the doctrine of length contraction is a conjecture without evidence and in conflict with a similar doctrine of length contraction believed to be true by Neo-Lorentzian quasi-relativists, which is more correct than STR's version but still wrong because the Neo-Lorentzian's don't subscribe to Newton's Absolute Space and Absolute Time.

Both special and general relativity are supported by plentiful evidence and in fact the GPS system needs to take both into account to get its timings right (source).

 

[`mud]

When a `void` is proven, then will we know the answer !
Maybe there was only one `void`, and never any more ?
Remember, light can't flow through a complete `void`.
What provides the inertia to provide the velocity,
what paths are provided to guide the photons ?
From where do the `voids` come, in the nothingness.
And on and on and on, pure simplicity !

 

[exchemist]

• Not so precisely, it says that the universe initially was a singularity: i.e. an infinitely dense point of something (i.e. matter, space, and time or spacetime), which began to expand and has been expanding ever since it began to expand. The singularity has no "outside", only "inside". The age of the universe is calculated based on its rate of expansion.
• Why do I think the theory is a crock? Because, as I understand it, the theory is rooted in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (a.k.a. General Theory of Relativity [GTR]) which builds on/adds to his Theory of Special Relativity (a.k.a. Special Theory of Relativity [STR]). And, in STR, the doctrine of length contraction is a conjecture without evidence and in conflict with a similar doctrine of length contraction believed to be true by Neo-Lorentzian quasi-relativists, which is more correct than STR's version but still wrong because the Neo-Lorentzians don't subscribe to Newton's Absolute Space and Absolute Time.
• Note that, although I am a self-acknowledged theist, not once did I hire a god to "get things done" in anything written in this thread.

My dear chap, I had no idea you were a relativity crank! I'll have to look out for your future contributions.

 

[Terry Sampson]

My dear chap, I had no idea you were a relativity crank! I'll have to look out for your future contributions.

Don't go far, I may need you to referee an arm-wrestling match. And don't expect a lot of fancy tricks from me. I was just a lowly foot-soldier in the Great Relativist/Anti-relativist War of the early 2000s. Got myself kicked out and banned from two well-known (at the time) physics forums for self-identifying as an Anti-relativist and merely asking a question. Us crackpots were not tolerated as much as we are these days.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Both special and general relativity are supported by plentiful evidence and in fact the GPS system needs to take both into account to get its timings right (source).

Strap on yer helmet, buckle yer seat-belt, and get a grip on yer steering wheel, kid. Blah, blah, blah. I've heard your tune many times before, and it still makes me laugh. How comfortable are you with rudimentary Einstein's STR stuff, ... minimal calculations required?