Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
What Was There Before The 'big Bang'?
I'm not scientifically minded so please be gentle with me here...
But can anyone please explain to me how an unimaginably large and complex universe came from nothing?
Theres enough religious fruitcakes on AB (and in real life) who would posit their own version of God as the source of creation but I have a real problem (as an atheist) with something (the universe) coming from nothing.
And if there was 'nothing' how could 'something' come from it?
(currently watching Horizon, Cosmic Dawn....these type of programmes always make me question.)
Thanks.
But can anyone please explain to me how an unimaginably large and complex universe came from nothing?
Theres enough religious fruitcakes on AB (and in real life) who would posit their own version of God as the source of creation but I have a real problem (as an atheist) with something (the universe) coming from nothing.
And if there was 'nothing' how could 'something' come from it?
(currently watching Horizon, Cosmic Dawn....these type of programmes always make me question.)
Thanks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Without trying to be to obtuse nailit. It seems that the more the scientists discover in this field of research the more they reference the bible and other religious texts. Plus the higher the office that people hold in religious orders the more they seem to become interested in new scientific reasoning. I say hedge your bets and just half believe both of them.
fascinating Horizon series on at the moment about this. Current thinking if I have understood it properly is that the universe has no end. Not only that but it seems that the old scifi idea of everything that can happen will happen and therefore will have a universe to happen in is true!
Here is Stephen Hawking on the subject
http://
Here is Stephen Hawking on the subject
http://
apparently steady state has been disproved
"The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified. The first trouble came with the Cambridge observations, of the number of radio sources of different strengths. On average, one would expect that the fainter sources would also be the more distant. One would therefore expect them to be more numerous than bright sources, which would tend to be near to us. However, the graph of the number of radio sources, against there strength, went up much more sharply at low source strengths, than the Steady State theory predicted."
He reckons (or did here) that the universe (at least our universe) started with a singularity.
"The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified. The first trouble came with the Cambridge observations, of the number of radio sources of different strengths. On average, one would expect that the fainter sources would also be the more distant. One would therefore expect them to be more numerous than bright sources, which would tend to be near to us. However, the graph of the number of radio sources, against there strength, went up much more sharply at low source strengths, than the Steady State theory predicted."
He reckons (or did here) that the universe (at least our universe) started with a singularity.
Following a most unscientific path...... why can something not have existed forever? Time is surely a man-made measurement and is not related to Nature. It is no more unreal than a journey in an imaginary spaceship that travels faster than the speed of light, against time - perhaps a return to youth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
To expand on OG's reference to the "Uncertaintity Principle"... it's most like a certaintity that he is making reference to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle... which, if that's a correct or certain assumption, makes such a reference in error or at least uncertain.
Problem is, Heisenberg (and others) posited that one cannot know the "where" and the "why" of a quantum particle with any certaintiy at the same "time". To investigate the particle causes it to shift, change or otherwise become uncertain. Bottom line... the particles that hav been suggesed as "popping in and out of existence" aren't ... they are only becoming observable and have no relationship to the ex nihilo beginning of the universe.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, one major factor that restrains understanding of the Biblical description of a Transcendant Being creating the Universe is the reliance on the "6,000 year factor". Our hardworking Bishop Usher, with all of his reliance on various and sundry genealogical records contained in both the Old and New Testaments, was simply wrong. The Hebrew word used in Genesis for "day" is yom... but can easily mean (and does mean in other Books) undefined, long periods of time.
Once this is taken into account, it seems the possibility (uncertain as that may be) of the Biblical descripiton comporting with scientific theory becomes viable....
Problem is, Heisenberg (and others) posited that one cannot know the "where" and the "why" of a quantum particle with any certaintiy at the same "time". To investigate the particle causes it to shift, change or otherwise become uncertain. Bottom line... the particles that hav been suggesed as "popping in and out of existence" aren't ... they are only becoming observable and have no relationship to the ex nihilo beginning of the universe.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, one major factor that restrains understanding of the Biblical description of a Transcendant Being creating the Universe is the reliance on the "6,000 year factor". Our hardworking Bishop Usher, with all of his reliance on various and sundry genealogical records contained in both the Old and New Testaments, was simply wrong. The Hebrew word used in Genesis for "day" is yom... but can easily mean (and does mean in other Books) undefined, long periods of time.
Once this is taken into account, it seems the possibility (uncertain as that may be) of the Biblical descripiton comporting with scientific theory becomes viable....
The latest research thinks that there was a huge cloud of Hydrogen gas that gradually coalesced under gravity or an electrostatic charge and formed the first suns. From these supermassive,short-lived suns was forged a lot of the materials needed to complete the universe. The universe can be thought of as a collection of "stuff" that is expanding in size and that floats in a never-ending nothingness.
