Problems with Big bang
I don't know if there's still a lot of atheist hanging around here, but those answering the question of creation with big bang...
Big bang does not answer how this universe came to being. It doesn’t explain the beginning; it only describes what happened in the universe the first moments after it was created. Consider the following points missed out by the big bang theory.
1. Is there a scientific way to explain how nothing turned into something? A sudden creation of energy in a closed system is physically impossible. A closed system means that under no circumstances can new energy be created and under no circumstances can energy disappear. The only change that is possible is for energy to change into a different state. This is one of the most fundamental rules in physics.
2. But lets pose some deeper questions. Was there already time and space before big bang? What came first, time or matter? Isn’t time materialistic (the fabric of time space, which can be bended by gravity)? And doesn’t “mater” need “time” to change? So one needs the other in order to exist. Did they come to be simultaneously?
3. Science used to suggest that before big bang there was already some matter and a lot of antimatter. Big bang was then not the beginning of our universe, but rather an anomaly process which created a chain reaction that changed all that antimatter to matter and the little portion of matter to antimatter. Nowadays string theorists suggest that big bang was the result of a collision between two membranes. See, they believe the universe has 11 dimensions. The eleventh one is a big membrane in which all other 10 dimensions are confined. Next to our universe could be other membranes with other parallel universes. A collision between two such membranes could be a cause for a sudden appearance of new energy within the closed system membrane. But this again raises the question, what created these membranes?
4. Infinity is a very hard notion for people to grasp since we have nothing earthly to relate it to. So naturally people are inclined to inquire about the beginning of things. Think about this. If there was infinite time prior to big bang, then that means that an infinite amount of time has to pass before big bang could occur. In other words, big bang couldn’t have occurred, but would be constantly post phoned if there was infinite time prior to it.
Atheists often point a finger at theist for avoiding this question. They assume the notion of a creator is an attempt to shift the difficulty of an infinite old universe to the problem of accepting an infinity creator. But just like atheist point a finger, a similar finger can be pointed towards science for shifting the notion of infinite time to the notion of an infinite source of the big bang; be that source an infinite membrane or infinite antimatter. No matter how you turn the facts or what angles you look at it, both the theist and the atheist have to accept the notion of some source being infinite in time. Energy didn’t come to be out of nothingness. A universe, matter, time, space…all didn’t emerge out of thin air. From my point of view however; when you look at time -a material construct- as a part of the finite creation; where thus the creator itself is independent of the created time, its infinite nature isn’t that hard to grasp anymore.
"atheism, darwinism and virtually all the 'isms' emanating from the 18th century plilosophies are built upon the assumption, the incorrect assumption, that the universe is infinite. the singularity (of the big bang) has brought us face to face with the Cause beyond/behind/before the universe and all that it contains, including life itself." (Hugh Ross, american astrophysicist)
"atheism, darwinism and virtually all the 'isms' emanating from the 18th century plilosophies are built upon the assumption, the incorrect assumption, that the universe is infinite. the singularity (of the big bang) has brought us face to face with the Cause beyond/behind/before the universe and all that it contains, including life itself." (Hugh Ross, american astrophysicist)
I didn't much care for it last you posted that. Why do you think it is any more true now?
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
Welcome back, it has been a while since you have posted. I dare say i have even missed you.
1. Is there a scientific way to explain how nothing turned into something? A sudden creation of energy in a closed system is physically impossible. A closed system means that under no circumstances can new energy be created and under no circumstances can energy disappear. The only change that is possible is for energy to change into a different state. This is one of the most fundamental rules in physics.
I don't think science is anywhere near to answering this question. Further, recent studies suggest that our universe never came from nothing but is more of a sister-universe. Multiple universes are gaining in probability to the point they cannot currently be rules out.
2. But lets pose some deeper questions. Was there already time and space before big bang? What came first, time or matter? Isn’t time materialistic (the fabric of time space, which can be bended by gravity)? And doesn’t “mater” need “time” to change? So one needs the other in order to exist. Did they come to be simultaneously?
I agree with you in that science also is now strongly considering the probability that time itself was not created at what they suspect is our most recent big bang. Obviously school of thought is of a numerous number of big bangs.
3. Science used to suggest that before big bang there was already some matter and a lot of antimatter. Big bang was then not the beginning of our universe, but rather an anomaly process which created a chain reaction that changed all that antimatter to matter and the little portion of matter to antimatter. Nowadays string theorists suggest that big bang was the result of a collision between two membranes. See, they believe the universe has 11 dimensions. The eleventh one is a big membrane in which all other 10 dimensions are confined. Next to our universe could be other membranes with other parallel universes. A collision between two such membranes could be a cause for a sudden appearance of new energy within the closed system membrane. But this again raises the question, what created these membranes?
I agree entirely and string theory is only one of a number of probabilities, Another being that our universe is more like being inside of a dark energy star and I think you would really enjoy this one: Dark Energy Stars.
4. Infinity is a very hard notion for people to grasp since we have nothing earthly to relate it to. So naturally people are inclined to inquire about the beginning of things. Think about this. If there was infinite time prior to big bang, then that means that an infinite amount of time has to pass before big bang could occur. In other words, big bang couldn’t have occurred, but would be constantly post phoned if there was infinite time prior to it.
Your point could be valid on the assumption that only one big bang occured, which is neither accepted or unaccepted by science, as I am sure you would agree. The jury is still out, all the data is not yet in.
Atheists often point a finger at theist for avoiding this question. They assume the notion of a creator is an attempt to shift the difficulty of an infinite old universe to the problem of accepting an infinity creator. But just like atheist point a finger, a similar finger can be pointed towards science for shifting the notion of infinite time to the notion of an infinite source of the big bang; be that source an infinite membrane or infinite antimatter. No matter how you turn the facts or what angles you look at it, both the theist and the atheist have to accept the notion of some source being infinite in time. Energy didn’t come to be out of nothingness. A universe, matter, time, space…all didn’t emerge out of thin air. From my point of view however; when you look at time -a material construct- as a part of the finite creation; where thus the creator itself is independent of the created time, its infinite nature isn’t that hard to grasp anymore.
Are you not assuming because we don't yet know implies we must have a creator or another way of looking at it is that a "creator" answers the question that science cannot and the paradox being that science does not actually answer questions of absolute proof. Only religion claims that.
I agree with you about mankind and it's ability not to understand the concept of time on a large scale.
I took a quick look. Looks interesting. I'll post something there to inshallah
Your point could be valid on the assumption that only one big bang occured, which is neither accepted or unaccepted by science, as I am sure you would agree. The jury is still out, all the data is not yet in.
Well it's very challanging if not nearly impossible to get data from before big bang. Still, I think the assumption isn't require for my point to be valid. It could very well be raised if there were other big bangs in the past. Again the problem just shifts. There's three difrent aproaches to this:
1. There was infinite time between the last big bang, en the one prior to it. In this case one could say the second: Big bang never occurs because infinite time has to pass after the first one.
2. There is a finite time between difrent big bangs, and there were infinite big bangs in the past. In this case one could say: The latest Big bang could never have occured since an infinite number of finite time periods (the period between big bangs) had to occure first (infinity times a finite number is still infinity)
3. There is a finite time between big bangs, and a finite number of big bangs in the past but an infinite time preceded the very first big bang. In wich case the same question can be raised but for the first big bang rather then the last one.
Any other combinition would require a beginning. and then we aren't talking about the problem with infinity any more.
Are you not assuming because we don't yet know implies we must have a creator or another way of looking at it is that a "creator" answers the question that science cannot and the paradox being that science does not actually answer questions of absolute proof. Only religion claims that.
Oh no. I wouldn't dream implying that. My only intention was to clear up some misconceptions some atheist have regarding big bang.
I agree with you about mankind and it's ability not to understand the concept of time on a large scale.
Yes , personally I think infinite time in the past is impossible, and infinite can only exist if it's independant of time. Like in the case of an infinite creator, who is independant of time. That way infinite is easyer to concieve. However, my honesty obligates me to point out that of course this view could also works for an infinite energysource independant of time.
Once again, nice to hear from you again freind.
I was wonderinging, would you feel like digesting the book I've been writing all this time in my absense? I'd very much apreciate your insight on it. I tried posting it as attachment before, but it's to big. So if you're interested, drop me a line at: [email protected]
Well it's very challanging if not nearly impossible to get data from before big bang.
if something took 25,000 years to achieve. Would you class it currently as impossible?
Still, I think the assumption isn't require for my point to be valid. It could very well be raised if there were other big bangs in the past. Again the problem just shifts. There's three difrent aproaches to this:
1. There was infinite time between the last big bang, en the one prior to it. In this case one could say the second: Big bang never occurs because infinite time has to pass after the first one.
I am probably inclined to agree, however do you think you could ever reach your end journey if you faced an infinate number of light years to arrive at your destination?
2. There is a finite time between difrent big bangs, and there were infinite big bangs in the past. In this case one could say: The latest Big bang could never have occured since an infinite number of finite time periods (the period between big bangs) had to occure first (infinity times a finite number is still infinity)
I agree, an infinate number of big bangs is relatively possible, and then again perhaps not. It's all pure speculation. We cannot even make a presumption at this stage of scientific discovery.
3. There is a finite time between big bangs, and a finite number of big bangs in the past but an infinite time preceded the very first big bang. In wich case the same question can be raised but for the first big bang rather then the last one.
I think this is speculation again, nobody knows yet........
Yes , personally I think infinite time in the past is impossible, and infinite can only exist if it's independant of time. Like in the case of an infinite creator, who is independant of time. That way infinite is easyer to concieve. However, my honesty obligates me to point out that of course this view could also works for an infinite energysource independant of time.
I quite agree, it can work both ways. I suppose we both are only interested in the truth. Such a shame that the probability is that it will elude us both within our short lifespan.
I was wonderinging, would you feel like digesting the book I've been writing all this time in my absense? I'd very much apreciate your insight on it. I tried posting it as attachment before, but it's to big. So if you're interested, drop me a line
Perhaps we should get a perspective of what we are actually talking about with the Big Bang Inflation as scientists suggest it occured:
What this "means" is energy can spontaneously appear from no where so long as it does not last too long.
Back in 2003, early WMAP data already seemed to fit the theory of inflation, but there was one big question mark. Astronomers thought that ionised gas created by the first generation of stars might be mimicking the imprint of inflation by scattering the microwaves on their way to us from distant parts of the universe. Now the team say not. With three years of data instead of one, they have been able to map not just the brightness but also the polarisation of cosmic microwaves. The polarisation reveals just how much the waves have been modified by bouncing off ionised gas. After subtracting that effect from the temperature map, the team still find that inflation fits the pattern.
It predicts that larger clumps in the background are brighter than smaller clumps, just as the data show. Not everyone will be convinced, but this is the strongest evidence so far in support of inflation. "Galaxies are nothing but quantum mechanics writ large across the sky," says theoretical physicist Brian Greene at Columbia University, New York, US
In the strange strange non-intuitive world of quantum mechanics some very peculiar things are allowed. Within the limits of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, changes in mass, energy, position, momentum and time are allowed that otherwise are impossible. Although the uncertainty principle is simply stated its consequences are complex and profound. Heisenberg showed that the product of momentum and position as well as the product of energy and time cannot be known in the usual sense to a precision less than of the order of magnitude of Planck's constant which is a very small number (about 10^-34 joule sec) but not zero. Below that limit the variables above are no longer conserved. What this "means" is energy can spontaneously appear from no where so long as it does not last too long. Particles can "pop up" out of a vacuum so long as they do not have too large a mass or do not last too long. One might be inclined to dismiss all this as the wild imagination of physicists, but some things have been observed that require that interpretation. One example is black holes from which nothing, not even light, is able to escape -- well not quite. Black holes are not quite black -- they leak -- due to quantum fluctuations. So called "virtual particles" appear out of a vacuum only to disappear very quickly -- in times less than the limits set by the uncertainty principle. Richard Feynman once said that anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics does not understand the problem!!! So on the very small scale our intuition fails us completely. The Big Bang theory of the Universe is generally accepted as the best explanation of the evolution of the Universe, but even that theory does not begin at time = 0 (exactly) but only after a infinitesimally short time later. Such is the world of quantum fluctuations.
if something took 25,000 years to achieve. Would you class it currently as impossible?
I don't think the time required to archive data -although by itself already challanging- is the real problem with examening What went prior to Big bang. The real problem is that Big bang changed the universe so drasticly there's hardly any trace examinable of what went prior to it.
I think this is speculation again, nobody knows yet........
Yes of course, my point however was that regardless of the way you look at it, if you assume the time of the past is infinite it poses a philosophical qeustion.
As for your counterquestion, no I don't think one can ever reach an infinite far destination.
I think that the "Big Bang" is a reality and a true verification of Allah's(swt) word. First there was nothing then in an instant all creation exploded forth and is still expanding.
What might and power, when for a brief moment all time, space and matter was contained in just a microscopic dot, a thought and no more. Then Allah(swt) said for it to be and it it is.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
kay:
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks