Misconceptions about the Big Bang
A common Creationist misconception about the Big Bang Theory is that it involved an explosion in pre-existing space. This leads to a strawman of what the theory actually entails; that is, the expansion (not explosion) of space itself. It is my hope that this article will help those confused Creationists who make this error.
The universe, right now, is expanding. This was the first evidence for the Big Bang, initially discovered in 1929 by Edwin Hubble when he was studying galaxies. He found that galaxies were all moving away from us. (In 1998, using standard candles, scientists also discovered that the expansion was accelerating, most likely fueled by the postulated Dark Energy that is said to dominate the universe, providing a repulsive force.) Scientists logically concluded that if space was growing in volume as time went forward, if we went backwards in time, we would see a steady shrinking of space, until it reached a singularity, a point of infinite volume and mass. With the advent of quantum mechanics and its application to cosmology, the singularity is no longer appropriate, as spacetime acts in a very bizarre manner 10^-43 seconds before we can reach the singularity. Since we do not know exactly how spacetime behaves this far back, at this minute scale (10^-33m is about the size of the universe at this time), we cannot posit a singularity. We will have to wait and see if hypotheses like String Theory, or Loop Quantum Gravity, can unite Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity to postulate into this mysterious region.
This right away demonstrates that the Creationist view of an explosion in pre-existing space is wrong, because space itself was what expanded.
Creationists on the board have done other disservices to physicists by stating that they are actually opposed to the Big Bang when in fact they have done great works in verifying its reality. Recently, for instance, Fezzilla quoted two prominent scientists; Michio Kaku and Alan Guth. He quotes Kaku saying, in Parallel Worlds, "The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the big-bang. Well, some people say, Whats wrong with that? Whats wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well, for a physicist, this is a disaster! All our lives weve dedicated to the proposition that the universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics. And here we have the centerpiece of the universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law." If the Creationist mentioned had done his homework, they would have realized that Kaku is a theoretical physicist interested in uniting Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity, he is co-creator of String Theory! This is what Kaku is talking about when he was quoted as saying [the] problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the big-bang. We cannot yet unite QM and GR, and so the laws break down! There is nothing about the quote that even hints at the notion that the Big Bang is wrong. Our current theory cant go all the way back yet. But it can probe back a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a billionth of a second back. Fezzillas quoting of Kaku is a misquotation.
The same for Alan Guth. Fezzilla writes, "In spite of the fact that we call it "the Big Bang theory," it really says nothing about the big-bang. It doesnt tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang? It doesnt really allow us to predict what conditions are immediately after this bang." Again, a little research would show that Guth is being misquoted. Guth was actually the independent co-discoverer of Inflation Theory, the very idea that gave the bang to the Big Bang!
The other scientists dont even mention anything about the Big Bang being a, as Fezzilla puts it, thermodynamic dead end. Its simple misquotation. While we are on the subject of thermodynamics though, we need to ask, how do thermodynamics apply to the early universe? Beginning with the first law, involving the Conservation of Energy, it simply states that energy is conserved in a closed system. If I ran in an isolated system, my kinetic energy would slowly decrease, and I would in turn release thermal energy (heat). Eventually my amount of usable energy runs down and I can no longer move. Yet, overall, the different forms of energy still add up to the same amount as existed before, even though they have changed forms. Applying this to the initial moment of the Big Bang really doesnt do anything. Energy has always been here, its assumed with the Big Bang (along with space and time as well!) The 2nd Law, a favorite of Creationists, basically states that the amount of usable energy in a closed system will always decrease, and therefore that entropy will always increase. Entropy is, simply put, a measure of the amount of unusable energy. Because entropy has always been increasing, if we look back in time, entropy must have been practically zero. The early universe was really ordered. The further back in time we go the more ordered the universe is. Asking where all this order came from is like asking Stephen Hawkings favorite question, What is north of the north pole? Its nonsensical to apply laws that govern the universe, to the origin of the universe itself. Whatever birthed the universe, if anything had to, did not necessarily have to go by the same rules that ours does.
Lastly, Creationists (namely Kent Hovind) believe that the universe was spinning and so every object in the universe should be spinning the same way. My question to Kent Hovind is, what would the entire universe be spinning in relation to? Spin is a relative motion. When I spin, its in relation to my room. The Earth spins in relation to the sun, the sun to the galaxy, and the galaxy to other galaxies. Yet the universe has nothing outside of which to spin in relation to. The idea then, of a spinning universe is rather moot.
This was rather hastily composed, and so if you find any errors let me know. I simply wanted to clear up some common problems with the Big Bang that arent actually problems, simply misunderstandings.
A common Creationist misconception about the Big Bang Theory is that it involved an explosion in pre-existing space. This leads to a strawman of what the theory actually entails; that is, the expansion (not explosion) of space itself. It is my hope that this article will help those confused Creationists who make this error.
The universe, right now, is expanding. This was the first evidence for the Big Bang, initially discovered in 1929 by Edwin Hubble when he was studying galaxies. He found that galaxies were all moving away from us. (In 1998, using standard candles, scientists also discovered that the expansion was accelerating, most likely fueled by the postulated Dark Energy that is said to dominate the universe, providing a repulsive force.) Scientists logically concluded that if space was growing in volume as time went forward, if we went backwards in time, we would see a steady shrinking of space, until it reached a singularity, a point of infinite volume and mass. With the advent of quantum mechanics and its application to cosmology, the singularity is no longer appropriate, as spacetime acts in a very bizarre manner 10^-43 seconds before we can reach the singularity. Since we do not know exactly how spacetime behaves this far back, at this minute scale (10^-33m is about the size of the universe at this time), we cannot posit a singularity. We will have to wait and see if hypotheses like String Theory, or Loop Quantum Gravity, can unite Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity to postulate into this mysterious region.
This right away demonstrates that the Creationist view of an explosion in pre-existing space is wrong, because space itself was what expanded.
Creationists on the board have done other disservices to physicists by stating that they are actually opposed to the Big Bang when in fact they have done great works in verifying its reality. Recently, for instance, Fezzilla quoted two prominent scientists; Michio Kaku and Alan Guth. He quotes Kaku saying, in Parallel Worlds, "The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the big-bang. Well, some people say, Whats wrong with that? Whats wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well, for a physicist, this is a disaster! All our lives weve dedicated to the proposition that the universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics. And here we have the centerpiece of the universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law." If the Creationist mentioned had done his homework, they would have realized that Kaku is a theoretical physicist interested in uniting Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity, he is co-creator of String Theory! This is what Kaku is talking about when he was quoted as saying [the] problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the big-bang. We cannot yet unite QM and GR, and so the laws break down! There is nothing about the quote that even hints at the notion that the Big Bang is wrong. Our current theory cant go all the way back yet. But it can probe back a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a billionth of a second back. Fezzillas quoting of Kaku is a misquotation.
The same for Alan Guth. Fezzilla writes, "In spite of the fact that we call it "the Big Bang theory," it really says nothing about the big-bang. It doesnt tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang? It doesnt really allow us to predict what conditions are immediately after this bang." Again, a little research would show that Guth is being misquoted. Guth was actually the independent co-discoverer of Inflation Theory, the very idea that gave the bang to the Big Bang!
The other scientists dont even mention anything about the Big Bang being a, as Fezzilla puts it, thermodynamic dead end. Its simple misquotation. While we are on the subject of thermodynamics though, we need to ask, how do thermodynamics apply to the early universe? Beginning with the first law, involving the Conservation of Energy, it simply states that energy is conserved in a closed system. If I ran in an isolated system, my kinetic energy would slowly decrease, and I would in turn release thermal energy (heat). Eventually my amount of usable energy runs down and I can no longer move. Yet, overall, the different forms of energy still add up to the same amount as existed before, even though they have changed forms. Applying this to the initial moment of the Big Bang really doesnt do anything. Energy has always been here, its assumed with the Big Bang (along with space and time as well!) The 2nd Law, a favorite of Creationists, basically states that the amount of usable energy in a closed system will always decrease, and therefore that entropy will always increase. Entropy is, simply put, a measure of the amount of unusable energy. Because entropy has always been increasing, if we look back in time, entropy must have been practically zero. The early universe was really ordered. The further back in time we go the more ordered the universe is. Asking where all this order came from is like asking Stephen Hawkings favorite question, What is north of the north pole? Its nonsensical to apply laws that govern the universe, to the origin of the universe itself. Whatever birthed the universe, if anything had to, did not necessarily have to go by the same rules that ours does.
Lastly, Creationists (namely Kent Hovind) believe that the universe was spinning and so every object in the universe should be spinning the same way. My question to Kent Hovind is, what would the entire universe be spinning in relation to? Spin is a relative motion. When I spin, its in relation to my room. The Earth spins in relation to the sun, the sun to the galaxy, and the galaxy to other galaxies. Yet the universe has nothing outside of which to spin in relation to. The idea then, of a spinning universe is rather moot.
This was rather hastily composed, and so if you find any errors let me know. I simply wanted to clear up some common problems with the Big Bang that arent actually problems, simply misunderstandings.
