Something I don't understand...

[Trillian]

... about the Big Bang theory.

I tried looking it up, but I can't find a website that understands the concept of laymens terms.

1- Is the basic understanding that there was nothing at all and then all the sudden there was a sort of explosion and then an entire universe? That can't possibly be right... I must have missed something so please explain it to me.

2- Shortly after the Big Bang, there was no life right? So, since life can't come from no life, where did the first life come from? If there was life immediately after the Big Bang, where did that life come from?

# 2 is where I really get confused. Obviously I don't believe that there is a god, therefore, I don't believe that god created anything or breathed life into anything... but I don't get where the scientific community thinks life came from.

Like I said, I'm having a hard time finding anything that isn't written as though it is a college thesis, so I don't understand the subject matter at all, and have therefore come here... your job, talk to me like I'm stupid.

Tril

 

[Grengor]

... about the Big Bang theory.

I tried looking it up, but I can't find a website that understands the concept of laymens terms.

1- Is the basic understanding that there was nothing at all and then all the sudden there was a sort of explosion and then an entire universe? That can't possibly be right... I must have missed something so please explain it to me.

2- Shortly after the Big Bang, there was no life right? So, since life can't come from no life, where did the first life come from? If there was life immediately after the Big Bang, where did that life come from?

# 2 is where I really get confused. Obviously I don't believe that there is a god, therefore, I don't believe that god created anything or breathed life into anything... but I don't get where the scientific community thinks life came from.

Like I said, I'm having a hard time finding anything that isn't written as though it is a college thesis, so I don't understand the subject matter at all, and have therefore come here... your job, talk to me like I'm stupid.

Tril

1.The "explosion" wasn't an actual explosion, it was the explosion of space itself. Who says there was life immediately after the big bang? For us, billions of years is a long time. Well, if you look at M theory, a current concept for the cause of the Big Bang is superstring membranes colliding.
2. Biological life on our planet? There's some future for Abiogenesis.

 

[MartinM]

1- Is the basic understanding that there was nothing at all and then all the sudden there was a sort of explosion and then an entire universe?

No. Problem is, time is part of the Universe. So first nothing then Universe makes no sense, because 'first' and 'then' imply the existence of time.

since life can't come from no life

What makes you think that?

 

[Lucretius]

... about the Big Bang theory.

I tried looking it up, but I can't find a website that understands the concept of laymens terms.

1- Is the basic understanding that there was nothing at all and then all the sudden there was a sort of explosion and then an entire universe? That can't possibly be right... I must have missed something so please explain it to me.

Hello Trillian! The Big Bang was not an explosion in the way I assume you are thinking of. I bet you are imagining a tiny fireball, and a bunch of empty space, and then, without warning, the big ball explodes and matter flies everywhere filling the empty space.

Here's how it really went down. First of all, get rid of this "empty space background". It's only right to picture yourself IN the fireball, because that fireball IS the whole universe. Now, imagine it inflating like a balloon, only you are in the balloon so everything is expanding — this way there is no center of the universe, because in order for there to be a center we would need something outside of the universe to reference it — which is not the way things are!

If you want to know WHY the universe expanded so quickly you will need to learn about inflation. The basics of inflation are that, a field known as the Higgs Field supercooled, and this supercooling resulted in "repulsive gravity", which caused the universe to expand exponentially. This means, after 3 seconds, the universe was 8 times its original size. Now, all of this happened within a fraction of a second, so, in a little blip of time, the universe swelled to an enormous size in comparison with how big it used to be. Yeah, I probably went a bit fast with all of that, but just tell me if you need clarification and I'll be more than happy to extrapolate.

In regards to there being "nothing" — MartinM covered this. Since there was no time "before the universe", the whole idea becomes meaningless. Most physicists believe it is appropriate to not go back to Time zero, because our laws break down. Instead, T=Planck Time (the shortest amount of time) is what current theories can delve back to.

2- Shortly after the Big Bang, there was no life right? So, since life can't come from no life, where did the first life come from? If there was life immediately after the Big Bang, where did that life come from?

# 2 is where I really get confused. Obviously I don't believe that there is a god, therefore, I don't believe that god created anything or breathed life into anything... but I don't get where the scientific community thinks life came from.

Abiogenesis is not my field of expertise, but some here know quite a bit about it. Abiogenesis is a theory regarding the origin of life.

Like I said, I'm having a hard time finding anything that isn't written as though it is a college thesis, so I don't understand the subject matter at all, and have therefore come here... your job, talk to me like I'm stupid.

Tril

Lol, don't worry We're here to help. If you have any more questions about cosmology, the Big Bang, physics, etc. feel free to post them here, or private message me.

 

[Valkhorn]

The above responses were pretty good, and so I don't really have much more to add than that.

By the way, Trill, I really wish Creationists here would follow your lead - even though you're an Atheist. You simply was not sure about something and politely asked about what you didn't understand.

Creationists, if you are reading this, take my advice and do what she did. Ask politely about what you do not know, do not assume the answer from ignorance and blame us when we become curt.

Thanks. Do carry on.

 

[gluadys]

... about the Big Bang theory.

I tried looking it up, but I can't find a website that understands the concept of laymens terms.

1- Is the basic understanding that there was nothing at all and then all the sudden there was a sort of explosion and then an entire universe? That can't possibly be right... I must have missed something so please explain it to me.

If Lucretius sees this, he can explain the details.

But no, the basic understanding is not that there was nothing at all. In fact the basic understanding is that all the energy which makes up the universe today existed when the big bang was initiated. But it existed in an infinitesimely small point. The big bang is not an explosion--it is the expansion of that point into a much larger volume. The expansion created space, time and matter.

2- Shortly after the Big Bang, there was no life right? So, since life can't come from no life, where did the first life come from? If there was life immediately after the Big Bang, where did that life come from?

Unless life exists on some other planet than earth, there was no life in the universe for approximately 10 billion years. The earliest fossil record of life on earth so far is dated at 3.8 billion years ago, while the beginning of the universe is dated at 13.7 billion years ago. So, no--no life that we know of immediately after the big bang. The solar system and earth had to come into existence first.

Life does have to come from no life. Especially if you don't believe in God. But even if you did believe in God (at least the God of the bible) you would still believe life came from non-life, just that it needed the power of God to transform the non-living stuff into living stuff.

Scientists are looking into possible natural origins of life and are finding some intriguing possibilities. Check out "abiogenesis", "RNA world" "hypercycles" and "protocells."

 

[Trillian]

Thanks, lucretius. Your answer made perfect sense...

I guess my real question is the abiogenesis part. My understanding (from 6th grade science class) is that life doesn't come from no life. What I remember was a story where maggots found on rotton meat was the example. I guess people used to think that the rotting meat produced maggots (life from no life) and then someone, who I imagine is famous enough that I should know his name, put two pieces of rotten meat in containers, one w/ access available for flies and one w/ air but no access, and the one w/ no access did not produce maggots. The conclusion being, obviously, that life comes from life, i.e. the maggots came from the flies and not the rotten meat.

So- once upon a time, there was a rock and somewhere along the line that rock became a planet that is beaming w/ life of all kinds. How did that happen?

Thanks.

Tril

 

[Trillian]

Scientists are looking into possible natural origins of life and are finding some intriguing possibilities. Check out "abiogenesis", "RNA world" "hypercycles" and "protocells."

You posted at the same time as me. I wish I had read this first....

So, is the short version that we just don't know? Is there one theory that makes more sense than the others? Is there a place where I can learn about the theories w/out feeling like someone should give me a Ph.D. when I'm done???

Tril

 

[TeddyKGB]

I guess my real question is the abiogenesis part. My understanding (from 6th grade science class) is that life doesn't come from no life. What I remember was a story where maggots found on rotton meat was the example. I guess people used to think that the rotting meat produced maggots (life from no life) and then someone, who I imagine is famous enough that I should know his name, put two pieces of rotten meat in containers, one w/ access available for flies and one w/ air but no access, and the one w/ no access did not produce maggots. The conclusion being, obviously, that life comes from life, i.e. the maggots came from the flies and not the rotten meat.

The man was probably Pasteur (although there were others) and the experiment contravened what was then known as spontaneous generation - the hypothesis that life could arise fully formed from organic matter.

Modern abiogenetic theories posit some kind of rudimentary self-replicator as the first 'organism' - a far cry from the complexity of a maggot or even a cell.

So- once upon a time, there was a rock and somewhere along the line that rock became a planet that is beaming w/ life of all kinds. How did that happen?

How much time do you have?

 

[gluadys]

What I remember was a story where maggots found on rotton meat was the example. I guess people used to think that the rotting meat produced maggots (life from no life) and then someone, who I imagine is famous enough that I should know his name, put two pieces of rotten meat in containers, one w/ access available for flies and one w/ air but no access, and the one w/ no access did not produce maggots. The conclusion being, obviously, that life comes from life, i.e. the maggots came from the flies and not the rotten meat.

The disproof of spontaneous generation. The theory of spontaneous generation is that complex life (mammals, insects) were generated in the present by rotting meat, manure, etc. Note the bolded conditions.

Abiogenesis is about extremely simple "life" (pre-biotic replicators actually) coming into existence in the far distant past, when conditions on earth were very different from what they are now.

So- once upon a time, there was a rock and somewhere along the line that rock became a planet that is beaming w/ life of all kinds. How did that happen?

Try to keep steps separate. The earth has to form first and probably did form from "planetisimals" which a lay person might think of a rocks and dust. Then the earth has to cool down enough to maintain liquid water on its surface. Then one can start thinking of the formation of life. But not from something as big and complex as a rock. Think small, small, small. Think complex chemical reactions building molecules that replicate themselves.

 

[Marek]

One thing I don't understand is how something that is infinitesimally small can expand into a finite size. What happened between the single point and the measurable size?

 

[dad]

No. Problem is, time is part of the Universe. So first nothing then Universe makes no sense, because 'first' and 'then' imply the existence of time.



What makes you think that?

Time as we know it is a part of the physical universe. But can you say there was only the physical universe contained in that singlarity speck at the time? You say it makes no sense, to have first nothing, then the universe, this seems to assume the Physical Universe is all there is, or was. That is quite a jump. The bible tells us the world was made before the stars. When it says the morning and the evenening were the first day after that, it means on earth, just made. Obviously other beings were already here at that time. We look at Proverbs 8, and see one lady, who was there with God, in that beginning, watching Him create, and make things!!!
This means, that in fact it was not nothing around, and no time of any kind. It just means that time as we know it, in this physical universe did not exist as such.
For the creation of the world, there was no cooling, or long ages. Man was put on the thing mere days later! The big bang, then, merely becomes a scenario that was invented to try to explain the creation, by purely physical means, or what we now call 'natural' means, and nothing else, that we cannot see, like God.
That is why it is so absurd! The universe in a speck!

 

[dad]

One thing I don't understand is how something that is infinitesimally small can expand into a finite size. What happened between the single point and the measurable size?

I know I'm the odd man out here, but I'll make it real easy for you here. It didn't, it couldn't, it is a croc!

 

[dad]

Here's how it really went down.

Tsk tsk, naughty man. You ought to say something like here is how I think it happened.

this way there is no center of the universe, because in order for there to be a center we would need something outside of the universe to reference it — which is not the way things are!

True, the reason we are the center of the universe is not because of what is outside the universe, but whats in it-us! The earth was made first, the rest was made for our benefit! Of course we cannot now detect that we are the center, but when the new heavens are revealed, and these temporary ones pass away, it will be apparent.

If you want to know WHY the universe expanded so quickly you will need to learn about inflation. The basics of inflation are that, a field known as the Higgs Field supercooled, and this supercooling resulted in "repulsive gravity", which caused the universe to expand exponentially.

Interesting exercise in advanced conjecture, based on assuming only the natural universe, nothing more.

In regards to there being "nothing" — MartinM covered this. Since there was no time "before the universe", the whole idea becomes meaningless.

But only in your PO based conjecture is there no time or anything, which is what really is meaningless!

Most physicists believe it is appropriate to not go back to Time zero, because our laws break down.

Correct, can't blame them for getting a bit uncomfy there.

Instead, T=Planck Time (the shortest amount of time) is what current theories can delve back to.

Imagination can be fun.

Abiogenesis is not my field of expertise, but some here know quite a bit about it. Abiogenesis is a theory regarding the origin of life.

Very similar to this strange little theory, in that a first lifeform appeared from non life, and no apparent reason. Very simple.

Lol, don't worry We're here to help. If you have any more questions about cosmology, the Big Bang, physics, etc. feel free to post them here, or private message me.

God help us.

 

[Dragon02]

But hey, we don't know; maybe conditions were different back then and things that were infinitely large could become infinitely small.

Of course, you refuse to even consider this because you don't actually believe your "laws of universe may have been different" argument and you just use it to push creationism.

 

[dad]

But hey, we don't know; maybe conditions were different back then and things that were infinitely large could become infinitely small.

Of course, you refuse to even consider this because you don't actually believe your "laws of universe may have been different" argument and you just use it to push creationism.

So, that more could have been at work than physical laws is not acceptable to you, yet you think it is honky dorey to just call conditions different, instead of 'laws', and shrink trillions of galaxies and stars into a speck!
Thenas you push this idea in place of creation, that is just fine. 'Kinda sounds scientific, hec, there's no God in there, we'll take it'! Sorry, that is ridiculous.

 

[notto]

Just curious,

To any of the creationist lurkers here.

What do you think of dad's responses? Did they help? Do you agree? Did they even make sense?

 

[Marek]

Just curious,

To any of the creationist lurkers here.

What do you think of dad's responses? Did they help? Do you agree? Did they even make sense?

I'm not an all out creationist: I haven't really made up my mind yet, but I do believe that dad makes a point when he says it's easy to just say that there were different laws at the early moments of the universe. It doesn't seem much more scientific than any creationist theories. Most of his other comments are hard to make sense of.

 

[Dragon02]

So, that more could have been at work than physical laws is not acceptable to you, yet you think it is honky dorey to just call conditions different, instead of 'laws', and shrink trillions of galaxies and stars into a speck!
Thenas you push this idea in place of creation, that is just fine. 'Kinda sounds scientific, hec, there's no God in there, we'll take it'! Sorry, that is ridiculous.

No, not really, it was just a parody of you. You make up this stuff such as maybe the laws of the universe were different back then, but refuse to consider other ramifications of such things.

 

[Trillian]

If the rest of you guys don't mind, I'm going to skip over the extra little debate and get back to my questions. Feel free to continue, but for those of you with information that can help me, please keep responding to me as well.

Try to keep steps separate. The earth has to form first and probably did form from "planetisimals" which a lay person might think of a rocks and dust. Then the earth has to cool down enough to maintain liquid water on its surface. Then one can start thinking of the formation of life. But not from something as big and complex as a rock. Think small, small, small. Think complex chemical reactions building molecules that replicate themselves.

That helps a lot. I guess I'm just trying to wrap my mind around a HUGE topic a bit too quickly... it's just so frustrating when you want to know something, but have to wade through miles and miles of scientific papers that you don't understand.

If someone with some level of scientific know-how could respond to this:

One thing I don't understand is how something that is infinitesimally small can expand into a finite size. What happened between the single point and the measurable size?

that would be wonderful.

And now back to spontaneous generation-

The story that I wrote down earlier, which I'm pretty sure was Pasteur now that you've said the name, only proved that complex life forms can only come from life that already exists, right? So, does that mean that very simple life forms can come from proper conditions w/ no life? In other words, are we today getting new simple life forms that are 'spontaneously generating'?

Thanks again...

Tril