Big Bang Question

[AB517]

my answer is simple:
i do not know.

I am with this guy.
Thank God ... well ... that God inspired the great scientists.

 

[AmarFaisal]

And to all the above there is more to add on this link

http://islam.about.com/od/creation/a/creation.htm

abt Big Bang and Quran

 

[ranma1/2]

I am with this guy.
Thank God ... well ... that God inspired the great scientists.

huh?
I cant think of one science inspired by any of the mono theistic deities..

 

[zoro]

The Big bang.

What happened 'before' it? (if you believe in it.) A simple answer will do please, no debates.

This thread isn't to do with whether it really happened or not, just want your opinion or view.

Qatada:

Of course no one knows “What happened ‘before’ [the Big Bang]”, but what is fairly well known is that the total of all electrical charge, all momentum, and all energy in our universe (counting both the “positive energy” of mass via E = mc^2 and the “negative energy” of space or “the vacuum”) sums to exactly zero, i.e., “totally nothing”. [I show evidence for that statement at http://zenofzero.net/docs/Awareness.pdf ]

That is, although most of us are fairly well convinced that there is something here, in this universe, that conclusion seems to result from our being aware of only “the positive side of existence”, oblivious to the “negative side of existence”, better known as “space”. In reality, however, and in total, there’s nothing here – which, incidentally, suggests that the answer to the question “Why is there something, here, rather than nothing?” is that the premiss is wrong: in fact, there’s nothing here.

To me (and other physicists) that result suggests that, before the Big Bang, there was “totally nothing” (which is “something” with which not only have we no experience but also have difficulty comprehending). Nonetheless, I and others (identified in the above reference) speculate that whatever “total nothingness” is, it behaves similar to other quantum mechanical systems (in particular, that it fluctuates) and what caused the Big Bang was that some symmetry in some fluctuation in that “total nothingness” was broken (for example, a “string of energy” or a “positive-energy particle” could have precipitated, breaking the symmetry), leading to the Big Bang. To test such ideas is of course extremely difficult, but there are hopes that one aspect of string theory will be tested in the new Hadron facility at CERN, and I have speculated about the possibility of exploring “total nothingness” by looking more closely “through” the “holes in space” that are commonly called antiparticles.

 

[Trumble]

The thing that I find disgraceful though, is that I don't think you understand the basic principles he speaks of to carry out a colloquially with any sort of dexterity. In fact I know incisively of the psychology that drives you to sit all day to find the one crevice in the net that would allow you a paragraph to contravene an opinion that doesn't suit you. I don't know why I expect, anticipate, and require so much from members when it is obvious what this all boils to, I only set myself up for disappointment... You were never about reading or maturing your thoughts to a level less linear....

"Disgraceful"? I don't think so. No, I don't have a PhD, or even a more humble degree, in molecular biology. However, I don't think it unreasonable to follow up an article that I actually found quite interesting (my actual reason for not pursuing the first was that I got bored a third of the way in) by finding out what others had to say about it. Thanks to the wonders of Google the time input isn't large. As to "you see if you have a clear mental picture of how it all works, you won't be resorting to various articles to give you leverage..."; if you had the sense of humour that I'm afraid the 'Egyptian churches' thread shows is completely absent from your personality you would realise why I find that so hysterically funny coming from you! Maybe a little unfair considering your last post there, though; there might be just a little hope for you after all. It's the ability to laugh at yourself when that's obviously required that's missing, I think. See, I can throw cheap armchair-psychology shots, too.

Is Richard Harter related to you, that I should accept his paragraph comment with appropriate solemnity?

Perhaps if you spent a little less time trying to show off and a little more paying attention you would have noticed that we know of at least one person who (presumably) greatly respects Harter's opinion and considers him an authority on aspects of the paper on which Melikikh is not. Respects it sufficiently, indeed, to submit the paper to him to receive that opinion - Dr Melikikh! Good enough for me... if you consider that a 'disgraceful' approach there's not a lot I can do about it. If you are able to establish where Melikikh went wrong, or indeed where Halter did in criticizing him I strongly suggest you contact the gentlemen concerned rather than waste time demonstrating your extreme cleverness to an ignoramus such as myself. I'm sure they would be delighted to hear from you. :sunny:

BTW.. back on psychology just for a moment. What do you think the choice of using "Lepidoptera" instead of "butterfly" and "Hymenoptera" instead of "bee" says about yours? Scientific terminology can be useful sometimes in making the vague precise but here you achieve the reverse. Unless you are suggesting that the great Mohammed Ali might equally have said "float like a moth, sting like an ant"! Not quite the same ring to it. Doesn't rhyme with 'Ali' for a start.

Peace to you, too.

 

[zoro]

here is a couple of PDF files to blow your 'a priori' 'pamphlet' away, and hope it keeps you busy from this board a while.. there is nothing I can stand less than preachers of any sort.. seems a little absurd to have zealot Atheist-- but I suppose wonders never cease... I rather enjoyed this account of statistical physics than yours... seemed a lot more patent and less preposterous.. peace!

Ambro:

Your post surely must confuse many readers, for example, your expression “a prior pamphlet”. It’s a meaningless string of words, chosen (I assume) in an attempt to deride but mostly for their alliteration – similar to your “patent and less preposterous”. Pleasant prattle for pedants, no doubt, but “where’s the beef?”

As for the two PDF files you reference, they have nothing to do with this thread’s topic. Why not provide us with some links to some good poetry, for example, in which the alliteration would probably be both meaningful and enjoyable?

Next is your “seems a little absurd to have [a] zealot Atheist…” On the one hand, given how much horrible damage various god ideas have done to humanity, there is nothing “absurd” about there being “zealot atheists”, e.g., the poet Shelley. And on the other hand, I’m not an atheist. If you feel the need to label people, then as I’ve told you before, in my case “scientific humanist” would be more accurate.

Then there’s your: “hope it keeps you busy from this board a while…” You hope that someone with different opinions will not express them on this board? Even when the opinions are in direct response to the question posed for this thread. That’s both confusing and interesting: on this board, are only your opinions to prevail? Even when Qatada asked for the opinions of others? Maybe you should take the matter up with Qatada – or the Board. But should you do the latter, you may first want to prepare to defend yourself against the motion that you be banned from the Board, since you so frequently violate the admonition to be “civil”.

You add, “there is nothing I can stand less than preachers of any sort.” In modern usage, the word ‘preacher’ means one who advocates certain ideas, e.g., Islam. It must be most confusing to others to have you state “there is nothing I can stand less than [Islamic] preachers…

Yet some clarity seems possible. You state – that is, in other words, you preach – that “there is nothing I can stand less than preachers of any sort”, from which it follows that there is nothing you can stand less than yourself. But actually, as understandable as that might be, I doubt if it’s good for you to hate yourself.

Further, though, and more significantly, your statement “there is nothing I can stand less than preachers of any sort” is either made poorly or is deplorable. Giving you the benefit of the doubt (that is, I assume that you recognize the people are more than some idea that they promote), then I assume that you meant to say something similar to: “I hate it when people promote ideas different from mine” or “I hate ideas that are different from mine”. But that, of course, is deplorable – even despicable.

Then, in direct conflict with the above, there’s your word “peace”. Most confusing: if you truly seek peace, then I’d recommend that you don’t hate people for their ideas, that you welcome the opinions of others, and that when you criticize their opinions, you support your arguments with more than pedantic alliterations and platitudes.

But I do thank you for the references. The first one, by Mullen, is rather thoroughly “raked over the coals” at the “Intelligent Design” promotion site (as given in your reference) ISCID, e.g., see the thread
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000233.html . As I mentioned above, the topic has nothing to do with this current thread, and as I’ve mentioned before to you, I have no expertise in biology, but I gather that the main criticisms of Mullen’s paper are that he assumed randomness and then, upon finding the probability for formation to be small, rather than question his assumptions, he concluded “God must of done it.” Thereby, it seems to be another “God of the gaps” argument. Instead, it would seem to be more defensible if Mullen had investigated probabilities in the case of 1) nonrandom formation of life using some crystalline structure as a template or 2) formation of life in extreme conditions (such as apparently has occurred at thermal vents in the deep ocean).

As for your second reference (which, again, has nothing to do with this thread’s topic), I see (courtesy “Trumble”) that it, also, has been severely criticized. Trumble’s point is, I think, a good one: it was the author who submitted his paper to someone whom the author considered to be an expert. All of which brings me to your ad hominem response to Trumble, to another acknowledgement of gratitude to you, and back to your use of the word ‘peace’.

You see, I was having difficulty understanding how medical doctors could have initiated the recent terrorist attacks in the U.K. But your communications have provided me with, if not a window, then at least a peephole to view your profession. Thus, and in contrast to medical researchers, it seems as if medical doctors don’t need to think for themselves: similar to computers, their memory only need be loaded (be it with anatomy or some “holy book”) and then downloaded on demand. I grant you that your profession requires being able to memorize (and recite), but it appears that critical-thinking skills aren’t essential.

Further, I then gain some insight into why more and more non-Muslims are refusing to be treated by Muslim doctors. Although your arrogant comment “no wonder only 1% of the population has their doctorate” may be correct, I find it reassuring that such a large percentage of the population has sufficient critical-thinking skills to conclude that they don’t want to be treated by Muslim doctors, even those who preach their idea of “peace”.

But while you are offering “peace”, perhaps you would care to demonstrate your sincerity. In particular, I would be grateful if you (or anyone) would assist me in the translation of two stanzas of the poem by the amazing Muslim scientist Omar Khayyam (1048 – 1123). As you no doubt know, those who have translated the Rubaiyat into English have taken “poetic license” to try to convey the poetry, but what I would be grateful to see is an exact translation into English of the following two stanzas, without taking any poetic license; that is, I want to try to get a clearer understanding of what Khayyam was trying to say.

The two stanzas of interest are the following. The first is from Edward Fitzgerald’s “translation”:

What! out of senseless Nothing to provoke
A conscious Something to resent the yoke
Of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
Of Everlasting Penalties, if broke!

The second is from Righard Le Gallienne’s “translation”:

And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well – what matters it? Believe that too!

Thank you in advance for any help you might be able to provide.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

In mainstream science there are two views that are regarded as plausible. The first one is that nothing existed before it, not even time or empty space.
The alternative view is that the universe exists eternally, and that big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but a process that drastically changed the universe and it's composition.

 

[zoro]

In mainstream science there are two views that are regarded as plausible. The first one is that nothing existed before it, not even time or empty space.

The alternative view is that the universe exists eternally, and that [the] big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but a process that drastically changed the universe and its composition.

Abdul Fattah (aka Steve): I agree with you, of course, and yet in a way, the two views can be combined. That is, whatever “total nothingness” might be, it seems reasonable to assume that it has “always existed” (recognizing that time has no meaning without energy, and therefore, that the word “always” is indefinite, and that to say that “nothingness always existed” also strains our meaning for the word “existence”). Meanwhile, it seems clear that the Big Bang “drastically changed the universe and its composition”, even if one assumes that our universe started from “total nothingness”.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

The two views are really not compatible.
One view is: nothing existed, not even time and empty space. To say that this nothing existed forever is a contradiction in terms. Because even for nothing to exist forever, there needs to be at least time, but if even time didn't exist then there isn't a "before". That means big bang is the beginning of the line. The very notion of something (even if that something is "nothing") existing before it is then contradicting.
The second view is that there existed something -a universe- perhaps even wider as the current universe. But this universe had a different composition (mostly antimatter and a bit of matter, as compared to now where we have mostly matter and a little bit of antimatter). And that then the big bang altered the very composition of the universe and turned matter into antimatter and vice versa. In that view big bang is not the beginning at all, but just an event that cleared all records of the previous universe. You could say it was "Format C:/ "

 

[جوري]

Disgraceful"? I don't think so. No, I don't have a PhD, or even a more humble degree, in molecular biology. However, I don't think it unreasonable to follow up an article that I actually found quite interesting (my actual reason for not pursuing the first was that I got bored a third of the way in) by finding out what others had to say about it.

I will not waste my time as I did yesterday re-refuting the paragraph you posted bit by bit, because I see that my posts get deleted, but will tell you this much, you have no idea what you are looking for in a scientific article to critique it, thus I stand by my words from the post deleted--

I don't think you understand the basic principles he speaks of to carry out a colloquially with any sort of dexterity.

Thanks to the wonders of Google the time input isn't large. As to "you see if you have a clear mental picture of how it all works, you won't be resorting to various articles to give you leverage...";

Indeed I'll agree with you there... but google isn't a substitute for sound knowledge.. like going to the library and thinking you are well read because you are in the midst books.. you don't actually have an idea how they work on how to integrate them... that is all I am going to say about this - unlucky for you.. I am utterly unimpressed with what you make up along the way from Pseudo science to amiss quotes... and in fact in my deleted post pointed out clearly what is right with the paper and what is wrong with the criticism, seems your quotes of my deleted post skimmed over the parts you weren't fitted to handle...

 

[zoro]

Abdul Fattah (Steve): I see your point and agree with the distinction you make; I stand corrected. Meanwhile, of course I’m aware of the difficulty with using such words, which was the point that I was trying to make in my previous post, with all those quotation marks around “always”, “nothingness” and “existence”.

With such points accepted, I’d then ask if you would be so kind as to supply me with some references (on the web, if possible) that support the second concept. As support for the first concept (that our universe popped into existence, in the Big Bang, from total nothingness), I would offer the following (to which I’ve added some notes in square brackets)

1. Einstein: “Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, [then] wearing stripes with plaid comes easy.” [Besides his statement being a stimulating comment about the irrelevance of one’s appearance, I interpret his phrase “expanding into nothing that is something” as suggesting that he was seeing that “nothing” must be “something”.]

2. Edward P. Tryon, Nature, 1973 (vol. 248, pp. 396 – 397): “If it is true that our Universe has a zero net value for all conserved quantities, then it [our Universe] may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum [by which I take it he means the original “zero” or “total nothingness”], the vacuum of some larger space [which stretches the meanings of the words “vacuum” and “space”] in which our Universe is imbedded. In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things [that] happen from time to time.

3. Alan Guth as quoted on p. 129 of Hawking’s 1988 book on time: “As Guth has remarked, ‘It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch’.” [I interpret Guth’s comment to mean that, originally, there was “totally nothing” – from which we gained so much – for (or more accurately, from) nothing.]

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi
I'm unaware of any on-line sources that explain this concept of an infinite universe and big bang being not the beginning but instead a dramatic change in structure. I rely mostly on dutch books for that. But it's mentioned briefly in this documentary: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html