So where exactly do you say God was before the universe existed?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The Big Bang theory can be summarized thusly: At one time, the entire universe — everything you know and love, everything on the Earth and in the heavens — was crushed into a trillion-Kelvin ball about the size of a peach.
What Triggered the Big Bang? It's Complicated (Op-Ed)
Well, we have black holes - and theory says that the matter at their core is infinitely dense. Unfortunately, the laws of physics start to get very fuzzy at that point - so it's hard to say whether there is LITERALLY a point of infinite density there. But there isn't a hard-line maximum on density.
Is there a limit to how dense matter can be? - Quora
Note: Polymath will know better. There was no matter at the time of Big Bang, it was plasma.
The trite answer is that both space and time were created at the big bang about 14 billion years ago, so there is nothing beyond the universe. However, much of the universe exists beyond the observable universe, which is maybe about 90 billion light years across.
The universe is expanding, but what exactly is it expanding into? | New Scientist
Why not make a Google search for all these answers? Then if there is something that needs explaining, you can come to the forum. The answer to the last question came in 0.6 seconds with 43,50,00,000 results. Why do you bother people with such silly questions?
Last edited:
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
In Paradise.
Which self-evidently is the same thing as "nowhere".
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It is idea of Atheists. The theists think in opposite way.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
We do not know that, research is going on.
"The universe, in fact, has no center. Ever since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the universe has been expanding. But despite its name, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion that burst outward from a central point of detonation. The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center."
Where Is the Center of the Universe?
(Again, about 53,30,00,000 results in 0.90 seconds)
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
That may be the answer for you. Science is not satisfied with just 'Goddidit'. Theists are welcome to their "God's magic" answers.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It is idea of Atheists. Theists have opposite thoughts.
Colt
Well-Known Member
The Big Bang theory is under more and more scrutiny as we are able to look deeper and deeper into space.So -- I've been reading a little about the sun and its composition. And the idea by (some, i guess) scientists is that the sun and stars came from a Big Bang. So the question is: how big was the material in the clump? that initiated the "Big Bang"? A secondary question is: did that clump have anything outside of that clump? There are more questions but maybe we can talk about it a little.
(Not that anyone knows...but we can try to see maybe what scientists are saying...well, some of them anyway.)
The unexpected new data coming back from the telescope are inspiring panic among astronomers
NEWS
AUGUST 13, 2022
Physicist Eric J. Lerner comes to the point:
To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
ERIC J. LERNER, “THE BIG BANG DIDN’T HAPPEN” AT IAI.TV (AUGUST 11, 2022)
James Webb Space Telescope Shows Big Bang Didn’t Happen? Wait…
I mean, once again, you know this how? Just to say, how did the hot dense material get to be? any idea? or was it purportedly by some always there without beginning, just always there...I guess it got too hot and so exploded?
Well, we have an abundance of evidence about the state of the universe at about 1 second after the beginning of the expansion. The cosmic background radiation encodes such information, as do the abundances of the light elements.
The two main options theoretically are as follows:
1. Time began with the beginning of the expansion. There literally was no 'before the Big Bang'. This is the version in the classical theory.
The problem is that the classical theory does not include quantum mechanical effects, which we *know* will be relevant at some point (we just don't know specifics about how).
2. Our universe (the region of expansion) is just one part of a larger multiverse. Time is infinite into the past and matter and energy of some sort have always existed. Our universe is a type of 'bubble' in the much larger multiverse.
This version includes quantum effects, but we don't have a tested description of quantum gravity, so the details are unknown.
Yes, it was everywhere in space. The expansion of the universe is literally not an explosion. it is the expansion of space itself.
The figure of 13.7 billion years ago is a date that is arrived at by numerous sources, but it is a fairly recent fact we have discovered. When I was a kid, the age was described as 'between 10 and 20 billion years ago'. The increased accuracy came from our ability to study the cosmic background radiation in detail (which happened because of probes we sent into space starting in 1989).
Cosmic Background Explorer - Wikipedia
The term 'singularity' is very often misused. it is a description of what happens, not a thing. In particular, it describes, in the classical theory, that time itself begins. Everything happens after that point. There is literally no 'before'.
Now, in quantum versions, that singularity is 'smoothed out' by quantum effects, so time can exist before. And that is what leads to the multiverse scenario.
As for the 'center', remember that matter and energy are literally everywhere. It is space itself that is expanding. It is NOT a case of matter and energy emerging from some central point in space.
So, ALL points can be considered the 'center of expansion'.
Yes, there is a small amount of tension between evidence from the cosmic background radiation and that from studies of galaxy formation.
Of the two, we do not understand galaxy formation very well, so modifications to our theories about that are the most likely to change. This is tied up with questions about dark matter, alternative descriptions of gravity, and a number of other complex phenomena.
We know from the CMBR that the universe at 300,000 years old was very smooth. We know that there were well formed galaxies (separated) by 300 million years at latest.
What happened in between is very much in question.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The Big Bang is a mathematical model, compatible with General Relativity, and supported by certain significant observations;
The red-shifting of distant galaxies confirms the universe is expanding, not from any central point, but homogeneously - from any position in space you will observe the universe expanding away from you uniformly in all directions. The rate of expansion will always increase the further away you are from the object being observed - the more distant the galaxy, the faster it is expanding away from us, due to the volume of expanding space in between. Some distant galaxies may be expanding away so fast that light from there may never reach us. This is theoretical limit of the observable universe.
The discovery in 1964 of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation confirmed multiple predictions of the theory, and established the Big Bang as the standard model of cosmology.
Theoretical models are consistent back to one Planck unit, estimated at 10^-44 seconds after the Big Bang. However, there can be no observable evidence for the evolution of the universe prior to the emission of CMBR, around 400,000 years after the Big Bang. Before this cosmic event, the universe was too hot and dense to release any light. Astronomers cannot see anything further back than that point, they can only speculate; but much of what they do see appears to confirm those speculations.
Whether we regard all this as truly miraculous, the expression perhaps of the will of a timeless creator, or simply as cosmic accident entirely without agency or purpose, seems to depend on the perspective and inclination of the observer. I'm in the miracle camp myself, but others, it seems, prefer to live in a world without miracles.
The red-shifting of distant galaxies confirms the universe is expanding, not from any central point, but homogeneously - from any position in space you will observe the universe expanding away from you uniformly in all directions. The rate of expansion will always increase the further away you are from the object being observed - the more distant the galaxy, the faster it is expanding away from us, due to the volume of expanding space in between. Some distant galaxies may be expanding away so fast that light from there may never reach us. This is theoretical limit of the observable universe.
The discovery in 1964 of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation confirmed multiple predictions of the theory, and established the Big Bang as the standard model of cosmology.
Theoretical models are consistent back to one Planck unit, estimated at 10^-44 seconds after the Big Bang. However, there can be no observable evidence for the evolution of the universe prior to the emission of CMBR, around 400,000 years after the Big Bang. Before this cosmic event, the universe was too hot and dense to release any light. Astronomers cannot see anything further back than that point, they can only speculate; but much of what they do see appears to confirm those speculations.
Whether we regard all this as truly miraculous, the expression perhaps of the will of a timeless creator, or simply as cosmic accident entirely without agency or purpose, seems to depend on the perspective and inclination of the observer. I'm in the miracle camp myself, but others, it seems, prefer to live in a world without miracles.
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
There are two ways to get a red shift. These two ways can be explained with a simple example. Say we have a train that is passing by, blowing its horn. We will hear the pitch of the horn change as it approaches us and as it moves away. The pitch will increase as it approaches and decrease as it moves away. This is the classic doppler shift; blue and red shift, respectively. This is used by science to measure the rate of expansion and to estimate age of the universe.
The other way would be the train is stationary, but the engineer is altering the pitch of the horn; frequency shift, by turning a dial on the horn, that allows you to tailor the pitch. To the untrained ear, this will make one think the train is moving toward us or away from us depending on the pitch profile the engineer plays for the crowd. The second option is not part of the current science model, but makes a big difference in terms of what we think we know.
Time is a dynamic variable, while length is a passive variable. We measure time with a clock, with clocks needing a source of energy to work. We measure length with a meter stick which is a passive tool that does not need a battery or spring. Frequency shift is connected to a change in the dynamic variable of energy; frequency, leading a change in the passive variable; wavelength, instead of the current passive variable leading the dynamic variable; doppler shift.
Time moves to the future. As time goes on, things age. Unlike energy, that is a wave that repeats, time does not repeat, nor can we go back into time. Entropy has this in common with time, in that both spontaneously move in one direction; both time and entropy will increase. This commonality allow the 2nd law to induce a frequency red shift.
The confusion in science is connected to the clocks we use to measure time. These use some form of energy and are set up to cycle like energy; 12 noon and 12 midnight appears each day like a sine wave. This tool misrepresents the nature of time. It equates time with energy; kinetic energy, instead of entropy.
When entropy increases, energy is absorbed and time is used up; frequency shift. As a visual, say we had a compressed cylinder of gas at temperature T. We opened the valve and the cylinder will gets colder; red shift in the observational IR energy as entropy increases. It will appear to be moving away from us if we assume there is only kinetic energy and doppler shift. We will never see a blue shift connected to 2nd law, since the genie will not go back into the bottle and release the lost energy, since both entropy and time need go forward and increase, which will use up energy.
Colt
Well-Known Member
When they use the term "smooth galaxies", what do they mean? Like well organized?
it was expected that early galaxies formed by the merger of smaller galaxies. That would lead to a 'lumpiness' that seems not to be there.
Again, this primarily brings into question our understanding of galaxy formation. But, frankly, that has been a tricky subject for quite some time.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Basically. Young galaxies tend to be irregular due to the uneven distribution of matter. They only gain a elliptic and later spiral form through internal forces - according to current models.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Sounds like tired light hypothesis. "Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and remains a fringe topic in astrophysics.[4]"