Some thoughts about the Big Bang...

[ObbiQuiet]

(this is from an atheist standpoint)

At a point in the singularity no time would have existed.
In order for there to be cause and effect, there has to be time.
If there was no time 'before' the singularity, it couldn't have had a cause, and thus must JUST exist. (no boundary theory)

 

[armed2010]

(this is from an atheist standpoint)

At a point in the singularity no time would have existed.
In order for there to be cause and effect, there has to be time.
If there was no time 'before' the singularity, it couldn't have had a cause, and thus must JUST exist. (no boundary theory)

The physics that went on during this were probably super wack, so dont try to wrap your head around it using time/space stuff.

 

[g00dreading]

From a scientific point of view read
Professor Stephen Hawkin's research/lectures (Cambridege University).

The Beginning of Time
h00p://3w.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html


Does God Play Dice
h00p://3w.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

>Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.


Why is this point so important?
>Free will and predestiny
>Self constrained chance

Now consider this:

>>>>Order or Chaos?
h00p://3w.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v20n3chaos.asp

>>>>Self constrained chance / Fractals in Nature
h00p://3w.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/fractal.html


God is the Alpha (beginning) and the Omega (end).

 

[Jet Black]

my personal feeling is that we don't have the whole explanation yet. GR as brilliant as it is gives an unphysical solution. GR does not really like Quantume Mechanics, and the Big Bang is definitely in the quantum realm.

 

[fungle]

I thought under the present regime there were many big bangs and ours was the latest

 

[Jet Black]

I thought under the present regime there were many big bangs and ours was the latest

well there is alot of speculation on the matter, since there is no conclusive model yet. I suspect that as we start unifying the forces and so on, and come up with a more complete theory, the answers will become clearer.

 

[MartinM]

I think I pointed it out on another thread, but it bears repeating - even leaving aside the issue of quantum gravity, our Universe need not have begun in a singularity. The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem (which requires the Universe to begin in a singularity) is based on the strong energy condition (in essence, a statement that gravity is always attractive). But inflation violates the strong energy condition, so inflationary models need not involve a singularity at all. Our models are pretty good until about 13.7 billion years ago. What happened before that is anyone's guess.

 

[fungle]

So in other words the estimate from many sources is safely put at 13.7 million years for the age of the universe without consideration of another big bang before that.

 

[MartinM]

I dislike intensely talk of the age of the Universe. We haven't the faintest idea what the age of the Universe is. 13.7 Gya is a good lower limit, but that's it.

 

[fungle]

Look I don't know enough to debate with a persson of your expertise, but please tell me why you stop at that age.

 

[MartinM]

In the standard Big Bang model, we can estimate the age of the Universe using three pieces of information - the matter density of the Universe, the cosmological constant, and the Hubble 'constant'. These can in turn be estimated from observations of the cosmic microwave background. The best such data comes from WMAP, and yields an age of 13.7 Gya, give or take 1% or so.

The problem is, the conventional model breaks down at very early times in the Universe. There are multiple different models which agree on what happens after a short time, but disagree before then. 13.7 Gya is more appropriately thought of as the time since our models began to apply.

 

[fungle]

thankyou for explanation

 

[billwald]

What you all make of the new theory that conventional matter is only 5% of the universe, 20% is dark matter, and the rest dark energy?

 

[TrueCreation]

(this is from an atheist standpoint)

At a point in the singularity no time would have existed.
In order for there to be cause and effect, there has to be time.
If there was no time 'before' the singularity, it couldn't have had a cause, and thus must JUST exist. (no boundary theory)

--I think that space-time existed even at this infinitesimal point. Cause and effect is not invalid, though predictability is.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[DayAge]

Please people,
Some or all of you call Dr. Ross and speak to him live on the air, this Tuesday (10-28-03) or any Tues. Ask him these questions if you really want an answer.
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update

And if I'm not mistaken, it is not thought that physics
(possably) brakes down until before 10 to the -43 seconds after the Big Bang.
According to the Bible, our time started with the universe and will end when it ends. Eternity was before and will continue after. God operates independent of our time.
God created this time dimension so He can create others.
As Dr. Ross states:
"If time were two-dimensional rather than one-dimensional, it would be some kind of plane rather than a line. In this case, an infinite number of time lines would run in an infinite number of directions. This, according to general relativity and the Bible, is the situation with the Creator. If the Creator were to so choose, He could move and operate for infinite time, forward and backward, on a time line that never intersects or touches the time line of our universe. As such, He would have no beginning and no end. He would not be created."
The Creator and the Cosmos, by Dr. Ross, pg. 113

If you have questions ask him.

P.S. Also see his website at:
http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

God Bless!

 

[revolutio]

I don't believe in time, that solves this little issue rather nicely.

 

[MartinM]

And if I'm not mistaken, it is not thought that physics
(possably) brakes down until before 10 to the -43 seconds after the Big Bang

Yes. That's one reason we don't know what happened before 13.7 Gya. But even if that doesn't occur, my point still stands.

As Dr. Ross states:
"If time were two-dimensional rather than one-dimensional, it would be some kind of plane rather than a line. In this case, an infinite number of time lines would run in an infinite number of directions

Except, of course, that if time is a plane it's not at all clear how it would relate to the usual concept of a worldline.

This, according to general relativity and the Bible, is the situation with the Creator

Cobblers. GR says nothing whatsoever about a Creator.

I'm listening to Ross's show right now. Sounds like typical creationist propoganda so far.

 

[DayAge]

MartinM,
I look forward to hearing your rebuttals this Tuesday!
The program runs LIVE 1-3 pm central U.S. time. You can e-mail them. Because you are so far away they will probably put you first.
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/
If you want to listen live make sure it is showing the correct date. The previous weeks program stays up until 1 pm of the next Tuesday.

I'm listening to Ross's show right now. Sounds like typical creationist propoganda so far.
It does? Typical creationists are Young Earth, Dr. Ross is not.

The Space-time theorems do imply a transcendent beginning. Only God is described as transcendent. Any naturalistic proposal would simply be metaphysical.

But, of course I'll be listening!
Also, you might want to listen to the 10/14/03 program (GR transcendence starts about 21 min. into the program):
http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/rtbradio/cu_archives/index.shtml?main

God Bless!

 

[DayAge]

goodreading,
I have read the first link on time's beginning. Hawking either missunderstands or lies about what was taught about the biginning of time, by early Christians. They said that time started at creation.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

He is also wrong about the assumption that creation was 4004 BC. Some belive that, but the time of creation was argued about long before Darwin.

Since the Universe and it's laws had the same beginning, they both had to be created no matter when they began.

God Bless!

 

[MartinM]

Also, you might want to listen to the 10/14/03 program (GR transcendence starts about 21 min. into the program):
http://www.reasons.org/resources/mu...ndex.shtml?main

Listening now. Did he really just say that GR should be a law?! Good grief.

Sounds like he's invoking Hawking-Penrose, as I suspected. As I already pointed out, it doesn't neccesarily apply. If the strong energy condition is violated, as it is in inflation, his entire argument collapses. Not that it's much of an argument in any case.

"the Universe we can detect is made out of what we cannot detected", or words to that effect. Ross claims that GR would support that. Cobblers. There's nothing in GR which cannot be detected.

We're five minutes in, folks, and every substantive point so far is wrong.

Aargh! He just said that E = mc^2 is SR, not GR. SR is a part of GR. And he said that SR can't handle acceleration! That's an undergrad mistake.

10 minutes. He's on to experimental evidence for GR - something nice and safe and dull. No obvious errors, although I haven't been paying attention too closely.

Ooh, he's going on to quintessence. Sounds like he might have a sideswipe at Humphreys, too.

Ads. Boooring.




Get on with it!




Oh, finally.

"Sometime Christians get real nervous about RTB hitching their theology to GR"

I'd imagine most general relativists aren't too thrilled about it, either.

Oh, we're only supposed to hitch our theology to those parts of GR which are 'Biblically mandated'. There you go then.

Now he's mentioning the possibility of a more fundamental theory which may refine GR. He fails to mention the fact that such a theory would apply just 'before' we reach singularity, projecting backwards, and may well throw out his 'transcendent beginning' yet again. Also that an absence of such a theory prevents us from making any assertion about such a beginning.

20 minutes. Oh, wow! His first caller is bringing up the horizon problem! The solution to which is...inflation! Which cuts off Hawking-Penrose and the singular beginning of the Universe at the knees. Oh, man. You've got to love that.

Did he just say that we know the age of the Universe to within 2 decimal places? Oh, my.

OK, he just explicitly mentioned inflation. He's clearly familiar with it. Not so familiar with the slow-roll condition, obviously.

Oh, the irony, the irony! He's trying to defend GR because it gives him a singular beginning, but he's defending it with the very model that may remove it. Beautiful.

25 minutes. It would be childish in the extreme to point out that Ross can't pronounce 'adiabatic'. But what the hell.

'Our young-Earth friends'. Heh. Feel the love.

Fundamental constants are fine-tuned? Oh, please. Show me the search space. Show me our ensemble of possible Universes.

30 minutes. The good doctor hasn't earned any more of my time. I'm done with this.