Where did the big bang take place.

Nollog

MagicMarker wrote: »

.



Don't you get it!? We know more about the moon than the Earth, which means we don't know anything about the Earth, or the Universe in fact.

It's all very simple, Lee will be back any minute now to explain it all.

Do you seriously need to have your hand held while someone explains what they meant by using a phrase that doesn't 100% fit what the full truth is?
Is that why you're an atheist? Can you please try to read past the text and get the meaning of the post?

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Hm, MagicMarker was obviously being sarcastic, but you have elegantly countered Lee Snowflake's point.

From what I've seen on this forum, everyone is "being sarcastic" since you all can't read a post properly and question the wording of fudging everything.

robindch

/\/ollog wrote: »

From what I've seen on this forum, everyone is "being sarcastic" since you all can't read a post properly and question the wording of fudging everything.

Well, I don't think that not all of us haven't been not sarky. At least not all of the time anyway has been not been spent fudging.

MagicMarker

/\/ollog wrote: »

Do you seriously need to have your hand held while someone explains what they meant by using a phrase that doesn't 100% fit what the full truth is?
Is that why you're an atheist? Can you please try to read past the text and get the meaning of the post?


From what I've seen on this forum, everyone is "being sarcastic" since you all can't read a post properly and question the wording of fudging everything.

Are you being sarcastic?

Morbert

Lee Snowflake wrote: »

HA. Not at all. The human race like to think they know everything about everything. It's the height of ignorance. We know diddly squat aout the universe.

said Lee Snowflake, on his computer which exploits the laws of the universe.

Also, I don't know if it was answered or not already: The big bang happened everywhere.

oldrnwisr

yammycat, to answer your question about particle physics here are some recommendations.

Wonders of the Universe - Brian Cox

This is the book to go with the TV series. It's quite basic but since I don't know how much background you have in physics/science, I'm going to put a list covering the spectrum of detail.

Universe, The Definitive Digital Guide - Martin Rees

Again another relatively basic entry but with some magnificent illustrations.

Particle Physics for Dummies

You can't really avoid this series.

Particle Physics - A Very Short Introduction

The VSI series are wonderful and present concise summaries of each subject.

As for popular science, the list of the books covering the big bang, cosmogony and particle physics would be too long to post in detail but I will recommend some authors whose books you can sample to see if their style suits:

John Gribbin
Michio Kaku
Stephen Hawking
Brian Cox
Carl Sagan

Among these authors I would particularly recommend Carl Sagan's Cosmos and the TV series it accompanies. It has remained reasonably fresh in the years since it was made. I would normally recommend A Brief History of Time as well but I think that The Grand Design is a nice update of both Brief History and Universe in a Nutshell.

Hope that helps.

oldrnwisr

Time is an illusion. The human race can't even get along with each other, so what chance have they got of understanding the universe, or any of it's laws.

HA. Not at all. The human race like to think they know everything about everything. It's the height of ignorance. We know diddly squat aout the universe.

We know more about the moon, than we do about our own planet, yet here we have people talking about what was before the universe began, like they know for a fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9NA8yZDYkQ

the_syco

In 22,000 years, humans will get bored, and start flinging atoms together. Two will hit, and cause a massive explosion. But not in their time line. It will happen a few trillion years ago. And thus through a complete fluke, the big bang will be caused in the future to have happened in the past.

Or... you can believe something appeared out of nowhere, made everything, and made man. You'll just need to believe that this extra-terrestrial being always existed, and this was the first time he created worlds. And before us, he didn't do anything...

amen

Time and space were created with the big bang, there is no definitive answer of what existed prior to that...in terms of where in our universe the big bang happened, the answer would be everywhere

there was physics paper published a few monthsago suggesting that there may have been multiple universes with each succeeding each other in cycle of big bangs/big crunches.

It was suggested that this may be detect with circular patterns in certain background radiation. So there has been an experiment to measure this and it turns out the patterns are the but eliptical instead of circular.

MagicMarker

oldrnwisr wrote: »

yammycat, to answer your question about particle physics here are some recommendations.

Wonders of the Universe - Brian Cox

This is the book to go with the TV series. It's quite basic but since I don't know how much background you have in physics/science, I'm going to put a list covering the spectrum of detail.

Universe, The Definitive Digital Guide - Martin Rees

Again another relatively basic entry but with some magnificent illustrations.

Particle Physics for Dummies

You can't really avoid this series.

Particle Physics - A Very Short Introduction

The VSI series are wonderful and present concise summaries of each subject.

As for popular science, the list of the books covering the big bang, cosmogony and particle physics would be too long to post in detail but I will recommend some authors whose books you can sample to see if their style suits:

John Gribbin
Michio Kaku
Stephen Hawking
Brian Cox
Carl Sagan

Among these authors I would particularly recommend Carl Sagan's Cosmos and the TV series it accompanies. It has remained reasonably fresh in the years since it was made. I would normally recommend A Brief History of Time as well but I think that The Grand Design is a nice update of both Brief History and Universe in a Nutshell.

Hope that helps.

I'd also recommend Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, a 3 part series delving into the search for a String Theory. I've also started reading his book The Fabric of the Cosmos which is a good read.

There's a new episode of Wonders of the Universe on in 15 minutes too, I'm looking forward to it. I hope Brian Cox becomes the next Attenborough for Cosmology.

oldrnwisr

amen wrote: »

there was physics paper published a few monthsago suggesting that there may have been multiple universes with each succeeding each other in cycle of big bangs/big crunches.

It was suggested that this may be detect with circular patterns in certain background radiation. So there has been an experiment to measure this and it turns out the patterns are the but eliptical instead of circular.

You're absolutely right amen. The paper was published by Roger Penrose. He elaborates on the ideas presented in the paper in his new book Cycles of Time. The data was gathered using the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) but other competing theories about what may have existed before the Big Bang have also been supported by data gathered using the WMAP. Brian Greene has a very good treatment of these different theories in his book The Hidden Reality.

Here is a link to the paper for anyone interested:

Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf

The conclusion to draw from this paper is that it shows promise and bears further study. It is still a long way from being a reliable answer.

beerbuddy

enfant terrible wrote: »

Its not believed its theorized.

Well multi universe theory has been proven up to a certain point in Math however it seems to be pointing to the fact that yes there was time and space before the big bang.

Check out the horizon programs on youtube.
The main agreement among scientists now is that the big bang is not correct.

Funny that some people are so rude to call theists idiots when the formulator of the Big bang theory was a Catholic Priest called Georges Lemaitre .

MagicMarker

beerbuddy wrote: »

Funny that some people are so rude to call theists idiots when the formulator of the Big bang theory was a Catholic Priest called Georges Lemaitre .

*Pedant...

enfant terrible

beerbuddy wrote: »

Well multi universe theory has been proven up to a certain point in Math however it seems to be pointing to the fact that yes there was time and space before the big bang.

Check out the horizon programs on youtube.
The main agreement among scientists now is that the big bang is not correct.

Funny that some people are so rude to call theists idiots when the formulator of the Big bang theory was a Catholic Priest called Georges Lemaitre .

I disagree my view from reading various physics is that string theory has become more of a religion than a science and most physicists would like to move on.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3206

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=457410

boost creep

Galvasean wrote: »

Gah, I hate it when a know it all (despite knowing sweet feck all) theist gets the first response and uses it as an opportunity to be smug.

so you tell us how it all happened, oh that's right, you don't know either, see that's the trouble with theoretical physics, it's all theory and nothing has actually been proved, while i easily admit to knowing feck all at the end of the day the scientists don't know actually know much more, they're spending billions every year trying to find out where we came from and where we're going so they can make things better for us, we might as well be throwing all that money into a black hole.
i do admit that i do find some of your theories fascinating they're just theories which will never be proved beyond doubt...

Dades

Spoken like a true Amish.

I'm sure the "finding out where we came from", like all scientific research, involves the chance of finding out something else that might enhance the human race's chances of dragging itself into the next age.

Amtmann

Regarding what happened 'before' the Big Bang, it was once explained to me like this:

Imagine you are at the world's equator and start to walk due north. The equator represents the present and your journey north represents traveling back in time. Eventually, when you reach the Magnetic North Pole (The Big Bang), you actually cannot go any further north. It makes no sense to speak of going north of the North Pole, in the same way that it makes no sense to speak of a time before the Big Bang.

Also, on the starting point of the Big Bang, I strongly recommend people listen to this podcast from Astronomycast.org on 'Where is the Centre of the Universe?'

himnextdoor

Sadly, there was no big-bang creation moment; space is actually a very sparse cloud of energy and matter is simply a condensate of this energy.

Energy cannot exist outside space and is confined within it. When energy interacts with the edge of space, it is reflected back and is able to interact with energy that is approaching the edge in the opposite direction. This gives rise to a turbulent, chaotic boundary where energy creates whirls and eddies, some of which cause the 'binding' of energy that are manifest as sub-atomic particles.

These 'particles' drift away from the edge of space and converge on one another which results in interactions which give rise to other bound systems of energy some of which exhibit the properties of protons and electrons, etc.

And these particles interact to produce hydrogen, clouds of which condense to form stars... etc.

Big bangs do occur of course but as a result of large accumulations of particles and these big bangs, such as novae or supernovae for example, have a double effect in that they produce new, heavier particles and also convert a great deal of matter into energy which travels out, toward the edge of space where it interacts with the chaotic boundary and off we go again.

At some scales, space, energy and matter are indistinguishable; zoom out toward infinity and the universe recedes to a point (with an internal structure), and zoom in toward infinity, the universe becomes a collection of points with identical characteristics.

To be honest, if we are willing to accept the Big-Bang hypothesis we may as well accept the God hypothesis.

yammycat

himnextdoor wrote: »

To be honest, if we are willing to accept the Big-Bang hypothesis we may as well accept the God hypothesis.

Well one has evidence and the other doesn't so maybe we shouldn't

himnextdoor

yammycat wrote: »

Well one has evidence and the other doesn't so maybe we shouldn't

Even if the Big-Bang Theory is wrong, it can be said that there is evidence to support it.

himnextdoor

When science understands the universe's evolution from the point of the big-bang forward, it will still have the question of how and why the clock started ticking; there will still be the problem of 'the Prime cause'.

At that point, the search for God and the search for the cause of the big-bang are indistinguishable; the discovery of either may obviate the necessity either, of each other (If we have God, no need for a prime cause and if we have a prime cause, no need for God), or of a big-bang in the first place (There may be many ways through which a universe can come into existence).

Turtwig

I really dislike 'why' questions. They tend to show a complete ignorance of the concept in hand.

himnextdoor

Malty_T wrote: »

I really dislike 'why' questions. They tend to show a complete ignorance of the concept in hand.

How?

Pygmalion

himnextdoor wrote: »

At that point, the search for God and the search for the cause of the big-bang are indistinguishable

Well no, looking for "anything that may have caused this" is a lot more reasonable and likely to yield results than looking for "the sentient being that caused this", which is just wishful thinking.

himnextdoor

Pygmalion wrote: »

Well no, looking for "anything that may have caused this" is a lot more reasonable and likely to yield results than looking for "the sentient being that caused this", which is just wishful thinking.

But 'sentience' would be understood and describable by science as a physical effect as opposed to a cause.

Are you prepared to rule out totally the possibility that all the galaxies in the universe behave, at some scale, like neurons in a vast brain-like structure that can generate a 'cosmic consciousness'; that the universe has a sense of self and is itself wondering, 'Where did I come from'?

Perhaps God is a manifestation of the universe in the same way that you are a manifestation of your brain.

ShooterSF

himnextdoor wrote: »

How?

At a guess, (not to put words in Malty's mouth) but why presupposes a reason or purpose where there may be none.

himnextdoor

ShooterSF wrote: »

At a guess, (not to put words in Malty's mouth) but why presupposes a reason or purpose where there may be none.

In order to ascertain the truth by applying the null-hypothesis principle.

'Why does the universe exist?' interests me in the same way as 'Why is there smoke coming from out of the kitchen?' does; knowing the answer could buy time, or power.

When we know why, we are a step closer to understanding how.

dead one

himnextdoor wrote: »

How?

Because it investigates the truth. So don't say "Why", say "Yes"

Perhaps God is a manifestation of the universe in the same way that you are a manifestation of your brain.

Manifestation of the Praised Exalted One is the cause of the presence of the world, the way the sun-rays are the cause of visibility for the sand-grains.

dead one

ShooterSF wrote: »

At a guess, (not to put words in Malty's mouth) but why presupposes a reason or purpose where there may be none.

Why presupposes a reason like there is no God who causes the big bang or why presuppose a reason like big bang is result of chance.

Are you trying to say this?

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

Why presupposes a reason like there is no God who causes the big bang or why presuppose a reason like big bang is result of chance.

Are you trying to say this?

Dead one you know the truth in your heart. Look into your heart and you will see. But you have to be honest about it, your desire for immaterial wealth and riches clouds your judgment with regard to the truth of the material.

The Mad Hatter

The world is so much more peaceful when dead one is on your ignore list.

The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The world is so much more peaceful when dead one is on your ignore list.

At last, inner peace :cool:

FISMA

himnextdoor wrote: »

When science understands the universe's evolution from the point of the big-bang forward, it will still have the question of how and why the clock started ticking; there will still be the problem of 'the Prime cause'.

himnextdoor,
You should post this one back in the Physics forum to get the opinion of Scientists.

IMHO, Physicists, don't do "why." Why is a question for Philosophers or metaphysics.

Check out what Feynman had to say about "why."
http://www.comoestaeso.com/forums/entry92.html

dead one

Wicknight wrote: »

Dead one you know the truth in your heart. Look into your heart and you will see.

Yes, i know the truth in my heart and i want to share it with you, Here is what my heart said,

"You seek Proof of the oneness of the True Beloved (God), That is, if he were not a oneness, and there were even the smallest glimpse of twoness, then certainly he would have been visible somewhere."

Wicknight wrote: »

But you have to be honest about it, your desire for immaterial wealth and riches clouds your judgment with regard to the truth of the material.

You alone are unfamiliar with the melodies of the mystery; otherwise, in the world, that which outwardly looks like a veil is also speaking, is resonating like the string of an instrument, and is expressing divine secrets.

"The mind of God is music resonating through ten dimensional hyperspace"
— Michio Kaku

Now answer me what makes you to deny God and his existence. Honestly, ask you your heart.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The world is so much more peaceful when dead one is on your ignore list.

requiescat in pace

bluewolf wrote: »

At last, inner peace :cool:

requiescat in pace

dead one

FISMA wrote: »

himnextdoor,
You should post this one back in the Physics forum to get the opinion of Scientists.

IMHO, Physicists, don't do "why." Why is a question for Philosophers or metaphysics.

Check out what Feynman had to say about "why."
http://www.comoestaeso.com/forums/entry92.html

Ask me i will answer what you seek my friend. First of all scientist can't answer these questions properly. A Scientist will answer this question according to his faith.
Here is opinion of an scientist. But i don't agree with the scientist because he is putting his faith on physic. Physics can't answer all question.

They [science and religion] can be in harmony, but only if rational people on both sides engage in honest debate. Einstein believed in two types of Gods, for example. He did not believe in a personal God, or a God of intervention. He did not believe that God answered our prayers. But he did believe that there was a God of Spinoza. This is the God of Harmony. He said we are like children entering a huge library for the first time, not knowing how to read the thousands of books that are beyond our understanding. Many scientists, therefore, might say that they believe in a God of harmony. For example, scientists believe in a Big Bang that started the universe. But then we have to ask what happened before the Big Bang (more on that later). Then we have to ask where the laws of physics came from. Personally, I think that the laws of physics are the only ones possible, that all other laws are mathematically inconsistent. Thus, God probably had no choice in creating the universe, as Einstein believed. – Kaku’s response in a chatroom to the user FifthDream, who asked him, “Dr. Kaku, what is your opinion on science and religion? Are the two in opposition or can there be harmony?”, 2003

professore

mike65 wrote: »

The universe was invented at the event horizon of a black hole with a singularity.

It began everywhere at the same time, part of the problem is the way cosmology is explained in pictures on TV with colourful exapansion from a singular point being the favoured visual shortcut. Spacetime was created everywhere or indeed nowhere (as there was nothing before hand) and created the plasma then gases in which
particles would form and coalesce into objects that we recognise as the various "heavenly bodies"

Yes but it would have had a definite diameter much smaller than our current universe. What is the universe expanding INTO ???? (This is completely OT ... forget I posted anything)

Kanoe

time is relative, I didn't read all the posts but I'm sure it's already been mentioned. my fluffy e=mc2 understanding puts this into perspective, which is what it boils down to at the end of the day, perspective. it pretty much defines the concept of taking everything and quantifying as a unified point and is probably where science/faith cross over. (the alpha and omega of science)


If it helps i visualise it (e) like a light beam. Take a laser pen and turn it on, (like a big bang ) if I'm looking directly at the source of light it's just a point. If I'm observing the beam, thats say stretching from one end of a 30 foot room to the other it has now has length breath and height..and if I start walking from one end of the beam to the other I have time (that it takes to get from a to b, or the past and future) but all originate or culminate at one point where none of these are observed.