Did the big bang...

[Orison]

True... although you still need something that exploded (or expanded). Where did it all come from?

 

[Jet Black]

duuno. any suggestion?

 

[Orison]

some sort of creative force... perhaps.

Just to note though... The Big Bang Theory is just that - a theory. There is no conclusive proof that it ever happened.

 

[MartinM]

Theory of relativity. Atomic theory. Germ theory etc. etc.

 

[Orison]

Exactly, needs just as much faith as someone believing in Creation

 

[MartinM]

Does the statement 'the Sun will come up tomorrow' require just as much faith as believing in Creation?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

some sort of creative force... perhaps.

Just to note though... The Big Bang Theory is just that - a theory. There is no conclusive proof that it ever happened.

I'll wager you haven't a clue as to what 'theory' means.

What is conclusive proof to you?

 

[Mike Flynn]

Exactly, needs just as much faith as someone believing in Creation

This statement is certainly not true...and MartinM is probably the most qualified poster here to explain why this is the case.

The Big Bang was originally suggested as a theory to explain the cosmological data that had recently been discoverd (expanding universe, etc). Since then, all of the new data has continued to confirm the historical existence of a Big Bang. IOW, everthing checks out to a 'T'.

For example, the cosmic background radiation (some of which you can 'see' when your TV is reading background EM noise... a small % of the 'snow') can only be explained by the kind of expansion predicted by the Big Bang. Scientists have generated mathmatical models that can predict, if the BB is true, the 'temperature' of such radiation. And the prediction exactly matches the real thing.

Sorry Orison, but no one needs 'faith' to believe that the BB occurred. The universe has made it quite plain for us.

There are some remaining questions. The most difficult ones centering around the initial moments of the BB. The trouble we have is this: we still have no precise theoretical framework to analyze the earliest stages of this event. There are a few promising theories on the table (quantum loop gravity and M-theory), but none of them have been confirmed.

as for the OP, there is no definitive proof that time itself began with the BB. It could be that the BB is the result of a big bounce...

 

[LorentzHA]

some sort of creative force... perhaps.

Just to note though... The Big Bang Theory is just that - a theory. There is no conclusive proof that it ever happened.

Wrong. We do have conclusive proof that it happened. Research "Red shifting" and "CMB". The static on your television set between channels is a fossil of The Big Bang. You seem to be confused with what the word "theory" means in science. It does not mean, "guess". That is one of the biggest misconceptions that people have regarding science.

 

[Tenorvoice]

you want to know what the "big bang" is?

GOD SPOKE AND "BANG" THE EARTH WAS CREATED.

 

[MartinM]

You want to know what the "big bang" is?

Go learn some physics.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

MartinM, have sympothy on him, he just a simple southerner, infact had my cousin not told me about CMB and the Big Bang I would not believe it today, because I was taught that the Big Bang was impossible ... In Public Schools. Christian schools went all willy nilly on me and taught me that the universe was ... 6000 years old.

Tenover can't help if he hasn't been taught.

 

[Bushido216]

That just proves the point, because earth is in the perfect position to sustain life. Mars has a carbon dioxide atmosphere.

That's like saying that the number 216 must have been selected from a one million sided di because the likelihood of it coming up randomly is one in a million.

 

[einstein314emc2]

Like Mars, which was never habitable...

That just proves the point, because earth is in the perfect position to sustain life. Mars has a carbon dioxide atmosphere.

So did earth. But as organism evolved that made oxygen as a byproduct (like plants, for example, this partial pressure of oxygen increased. The thing is, it is practically impossible to have oxygen in the atmosphere much more than a couple percent because of its inherent instablility. Plus, if mars were earth sized, it probably wouldn't be that cold. The main problem is its thin atmosphere.

 

[Natro]

Yes. I believe space is necessary for time to have meaning. A particle traveling through space constitues time.

Although, I've always wondered what this "travelling" is...

-edit- I think "String Theory" might have the answer, what with it's "waves" in an extended line. But, then again, I know very little of the theory.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375708111/104-3034901-1663968?v=glance

 

[LorentzHA]

you want to know what the "big bang" is?

GOD SPOKE AND "BANG" THE EARTH WAS CREATED.

The Big Bang has little to do with the creation of the Earth. (sigh-shaking head...) Our solar system formed over Billions of years AFTER the Big Bang!

 

[LorentzHA]

So did earth. But as organism evolved that made oxygen as a byproduct (like plants, for example, this partial pressure of oxygen increased. The thing is, it is practically impossible to have oxygen in the atmosphere much more than a couple percent because of its inherent instablility. Plus, if mars were earth sized, it probably wouldn't be that cold. The main problem is its thin atmosphere.

Good points. Also, regarding Mars thin atmosphere-it once had a much thicker atmosphere but that its atmosphere exploded when the meteor that caused Hella's crater, hit its surface. The crater is something like 11-16 miles across and the meteor hit with such an impact, that it left a bulge on the other side of the planet (Tharsis Bulge). That is most likely what happened to its water too.

 

[Underseer]

I only took undergrad physics and that was a long time ago, so someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

It's not that space and time didn't exist before the universe, it's that space and time didn't have any meaning until the universe existed. In order to measure distance, you need at least one object from which to measure distance. Thus before matter existed, distance wasn't a meaningful concept. In order to measure time, you need at least one event from which to measure time. Before the creation of the universe, there were no events (because there was no matter and no energy), and thus no meaningful way to measure time.

So space and time were not meaningful before the Big Bang. There are two notable exceptions to this:

• Some people believe that the universe goes in cycles. Big Bang creates the universe, Big Crunch destroys the universe, the Big Crunch causes the next Big Bang, which creates the next universe, wash, rinse, repeat.
  
  I don't know the formal name of this concept, but for those who believe in a cyclic universe, space and time did exist before the Big Bang because before our Big Bang was another universe with its own matter and energy.
  
  
• If you believe that God and his angels (the ones who existed before creation) have physical beings, then space and time did indeed exist before creation, as the bodies of God and the angels would have furnished more than enough matter and energy from which distance and time could be measured.
  
  Note: it is my understanding that not all Christian scholars agree on whether God and the angels have physical beings (the old "How many angels would fit on the head of a pin?" argument). However, even if you are a Christian who does not believe in the physicality of God and the angels, the fact that they have consciousness would be enough to argue for the existence of time.

Just my take on the whole thing.

 

[ForeRunner]

For all intent and purpose, the universe has always existed.

 

[Mike Flynn]

It's not that space and time didn't exist before the universe, it's that space and time didn't have any meaning until the universe existed. In order to measure distance, you need at least one object from which to measure distance. Thus before matter existed, distance wasn't a meaningful concept. In order to measure time, you need at least one event from which to measure time. Before the creation of the universe, there were no events (because there was no matter and no energy), and thus no meaningful way to measure time.

Hmmm.

The existence of space does not depend on ones ability to arbitrarily make measurements. The same goes for the existence of time.

General Relativity suggests that time and space are a continuous and pliable environment through which particles propagate. In the early universe, this environment would certainly exist without the presence of mass particles or events from which to draw a reference point and make a measurement. IOW, spacetime, for all intents and purposes, is a thing.

Lets say the universe began with a random quantum fluctuation (as has been suggested by some) and before that there was literally nothing. If true, then it would certainly indicate that there was no time or space before the big bang. It would be incorrect to say that spacetime existed prior to this event, and simply nothing was happening within it.

One thing is certain: This expanse of spacetime that we exist in was a very different thing in the early universe. Perhaps at one time it did not exist at all.

Thats not to say that there are no other kinds of realities that exist besides this one. And perhaps there is some connectivity between such things....but thats nothing but speculation.