If big-bang happened, why aren`t everything scorched?

[Pulchra]

Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?

No, because there wasn't anything to get scorched until after things had cooled down. Plus that was 15 billion years ago anyway, so if anything had been scorched back then, you wouldn't be able to tell by today.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?

Things were well beyond scorched, well beyond molten, well beyond normal solids turned to steam, well beyond plasma, something more like a fusion reactor where atoms themselves were being ripped up and reassembled.

 

[Pulchra]

No, because there wasn't anything to get scorched until after things had cooled down. Plus that was 15 billion years ago anyway, so if anything had been scorched back then, you wouldn't be able to tell by today.

Yes, but things not being scorched you`re talking about a perfect temperature at it`s highest so everything`s just melted instead of being scorched, sounds a little too good to be true ...

 

[Ophiolite]

Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?

The Big Bang was not an explosion. (If you like to think of it that way, the "scorch" is the CMB, the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. )

I'm not sure what you expect to show up as scorched. None of the planets, none of the moons, or asteroids, or any other "cool" body existed at that time.

There is no other viable theory available at present. The reality of the Big Bang has been repeatedly reaffirmed by multiple lines of evidence. Personally, I seriously dislike the notion of the Big Bang on philosophical grounds. I also dislike the notion of cauliflower. Unfortunately the evidence is pretty well irrefutable that cauliflowers and the Big Bang are both real. We shall both have to live with that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, but things not being scorched you`re talking about a perfect temperature at it`s highest so everything`s just melted instead of being scorched, sounds a little too good to be true ..

Personal incredulity is the weakest form of objection to any theory. What is sounds like is irrelevant. Is it the best explanation for what is observed? In the case of the Big Bang theory the answer is a resounding "YES".

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Big Bang was not an explosion. (If you like to think of it that way, the "scorch" is the CMB, the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. )

I'm not sure what you expect to show up as scorched. None of the planets, none of the moons, or asteroids, or any other "cool" body existed at that time.

There is no other viable theory available at present. The reality of the Big Bang has been repeatedly reaffirmed by multiple lines of evidence. Personally, I seriously dislike the notion of the Big Bang on philosophical grounds. I also dislike the notion of cauliflower. Unfortunately the evidence is pretty well irrefutable that cauliflowers and the Big Bang are both real. We shall both have to live with that.

There were a lot of 'steady state' cosmologists at the time who really didn't like the big bang. It implied a creation and it implies an eventual stagnation of the expanded universe. Many at the time were hoping more for the perfectibility of the universe with Man reaching some sort of omega point. Instead, we face the point where everything runs down. (Maybe it recompresses and starts over, but who knows) The thermodynamics of it all was so disappointing and then Georges Lematrie all but confirmed it.

 

[Pulchra]

Personal incredulity is the weakest form of objection to any theory. What is sounds like is irrelevant. Is it the best explanation for what is observed? In the case of the Big Bang theory the answer is a resounding "YES".

yes, but you don`t find it a little strange atleasts that the universe had this Perfect melting temperature which didnt burn anything in its way?

 

[chevyontheriver]

yes, but you don`t find it a little strange atleasts that the universe had this Perfect melting temperature which didnt burn anything in its way?

It plasmafied everything along the way until things began to cool down. Conventional burning is oxidation, and you need molecular Oxygen (O2) for that. The first moments of the universe were so hot that atoms could not hold on to their electrons and the nuclei of atoms were themselves explosive. Way way beyond melting.

 

[Ophiolite]

yes, but you don`t find it a little strange atleasts that the universe had this Perfect melting temperature which didnt burn anything in its way?

What @chevyontheriver said. You are thinking in terms of the temperatures and materials and reaction/processes we are familiar with in these rather mundane conditions on this planet. The conditions in the early stages of the Big Bang are so radically different from those that piddling little human minds can't really imagine them.
Note: almost all humans have piddling little minds. I know I do. The good news is that a few minds that rise a little above that have analysed, quantified, clarified and synthesised so that we are as certain as we can be of anything that Big Bang happened as presently described.

 

[Mantishand]

How do you know the "big band happened? Because a scientist said it happened? Man thinks he knows everything but I think we are very ignorant. The universe is a mystery. I have come to question everything man says is fact.

 

[chevyontheriver]

How do you know the "big band happened? Because a scientist said it happened? Man thinks he knows everything but I think we are very ignorant. The universe is a mystery. I have come to question everything man says is fact.

Everything is a mix of common sense and data leading beyond common sense. In this case the red shift pushed Georges Lemaitre to follow the data to postulate a big bang. The universe is a mystery but we are allowed to know some parts of it with the mind God gave us.

 

[Ophiolite]

How do you know the "big band happened? Because a scientist said it happened? Man thinks he knows everything but I think we are very ignorant. The universe is a mystery. I have come to question everything man says is fact.

We know that the Big Bang explains a multitude of astronomical observations far better than any other explanation. This means, not that a scientist said it, but that thousands of scientist have gathered information, analysed it, built hypotheses, tested and confirmed them. It means that too withhold acceptance of these findings is rather foolish, pointless and irrelevant.

You are correct that the universe is a mystery. Fortunately it is a mystery that can yield its secrets, slowly, to determined, honest, systematic investigation. One of those revealed secrets is the Big Bang. If you do not wish to enjoy and be inspired by such revelations you can certainly turn your back on them. This will be of no value to you and the reality of the universe will continue regardless of your mistaken views about it.

You should question everything mans says. Scepticism lies at the heart of the scientific method. The facts concerning the Big Bang have been questioned by the thousands of aforementioned scientists. They have been repeatedly confirmed. Again, to reject those findings because they seem unlikely to you is foolish, pointless and irrelevant. Why not do some reading in one of the popular books on the subject. You might find it both intriguing and convincing.

 

[Strathos]

This article is helpful:

Timeline of the Big Bang - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

Note how atoms didn't even exist until the universe was hundreds of thousands of years old.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Yes, but things not being scorched you`re talking about a perfect temperature at it`s highest so everything`s just melted instead of being scorched, sounds a little too good to be true ...

Like I said before - there was nothing to get scorched or melted, not until much later. Nowadays all the heats in suns and stars, far away from planets - what are you thinking was there to get scorched or melted at the time?

 

[Mantishand]

We know that the Big Bang explains a multitude of astronomical observations far better than any other explanation. This means, not that a scientist said it, but that thousands of scientist have gathered information, analysed it, built hypotheses, tested and confirmed them. It means that too withhold acceptance of these findings is rather foolish, pointless and irrelevant.

You are correct that the universe is a mystery. Fortunately it is a mystery that can yield its secrets, slowly, to determined, honest, systematic investigation. One of those revealed secrets is the Big Bang. If you do not wish to enjoy and be inspired by such revelations you can certainly turn your back on them. This will be of no value to you and the reality of the universe will continue regardless of your mistaken views about it.

You should question everything mans says. Scepticism lies at the heart of the scientific method. The facts concerning the Big Bang have been questioned by the thousands of aforementioned scientists. They have been repeatedly confirmed. Again, to reject those findings because they seem unlikely to you is foolish, pointless and irrelevant. Why not do some reading in one of the popular books on the subject. You might find it both intriguing and convincing.

When it comes to the creation of the universe I'll just keep an open mind and not to take all knowing mans word for it. Oh and thanks for calling my thoughts foolish, pointless and irrelevant. Very kind of you.

 

[Halbhh]

There were a lot of 'steady state' cosmologists at the time who really didn't like the big bang. It implied a creation and it implies an eventual stagnation of the expanded universe. Many at the time were hoping more for the perfectibility of the universe with Man reaching some sort of omega point. Instead, we face the point where everything runs down. (Maybe it recompresses and starts over, but who knows) The thermodynamics of it all was so disappointing and then Georges Lematrie all but confirmed it.

Or worse than merely that classic entropy death in a godless distant future projection, since it seems at the moment the expansion of space itself is accelerating, so that in a vastly distant future the sky would get darker as galaxies fly apart, stars from one another (so those theoretically trillion-year long lived stars then it seems not get a chance to use up their fuel), and finally atoms are even ripped apart. While that's still an entropy death, sure, it's...well, worse sorta, than we used to think 30 years ago. But as you know no such worries need concern us even philosophically, as there is Someone in charge that can remake physics at will it seems. So, all such projections are only a mental exercise, a curiosity more about understanding the present than the future.

--------
I see there is a convenient summary available, as usual:
Known as the “Big Rip”, this would result in galaxies, stars and eventually even atoms themselves being literally torn apart, with the universe as we know it ending dramatically in an unusual kind of gravitational singularity within the relatively short time horizon of just 35 - 50 billion years.
The Big Crunch, the Big Freeze and the Big Rip - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hello, I`ve been thinking a little about it, when everything cooled afte the big-bang, shouldn`t everything look kinda scorched after the explosion to begin With, I find it a little strange, is there any other theory out there than this one?

There is the alternate view. An infinite universe with no beginning or end.

 

[Halbhh]

We know that the Big Bang explains a multitude of astronomical observations far better than any other explanation. This means, not that a scientist said it, but that thousands of scientist have gathered information, analysed it, built hypotheses, tested and confirmed them. It means that too withhold acceptance of these findings is rather foolish, pointless and irrelevant.

You are correct that the universe is a mystery. Fortunately it is a mystery that can yield its secrets, slowly, to determined, honest, systematic investigation. One of those revealed secrets is the Big Bang. If you do not wish to enjoy and be inspired by such revelations you can certainly turn your back on them. This will be of no value to you and the reality of the universe will continue regardless of your mistaken views about it.

You should question everything mans says. Scepticism lies at the heart of the scientific method. The facts concerning the Big Bang have been questioned by the thousands of aforementioned scientists. They have been repeatedly confirmed. Again, to reject those findings because they seem unlikely to you is foolish, pointless and irrelevant. Why not do some reading in one of the popular books on the subject. You might find it both intriguing and convincing.

While it still seems the big bang and inflation are the leading models, they...are not in that golden status of something as strongly confirmed as General Relativity, but on a lesser level of...seeming assurance. (though still seeming the most likely of the competing ideas)

It's fun to revisit the possibilities, and here's a prominent one:

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-big.html

 

[chevyontheriver]

Or worse than merely that classic entropy death in a godless distant future projection, since it seems at the moment the expansion of space itself is accelerating, so that in a vastly distant future the sky would get darker as galaxies fly apart, stars from one another (so those theoretically trillion-year long lived stars then it seems not get a chance to use up their fuel), and finally atoms are even ripped apart. While that's still an entropy death, sure, it's...well, worse sorta, than we used to think 30 years ago. But as you know no such worries need concern us even philosophically, as there is Someone in charge that can remake physics at will it seems. So, all such projections are only a mental exercise, a curiosity more about understanding the present than the future.

--------
I see there is a convenient summary available, as usual:
Known as the “Big Rip”, this would result in galaxies, stars and eventually even atoms themselves being literally torn apart, with the universe as we know it ending dramatically in an unusual kind of gravitational singularity within the relatively short time horizon of just 35 - 50 billion years.
The Big Crunch, the Big Freeze and the Big Rip - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

Point being the perfectibility of Man flops without God doing the perfecting outside of that creation. A theological conclusion based on thermodynamics and cosmology.