Printable View
Yes, but what created matter? An electron cannot simply appear, nor can atoms. They must originate somewhere. And btw, mathematicians have not been able to 'find out' exactly what happened at the time of the big bang. They have only been able to find out 0.54 (or something like that) of a second before the bang happened. This is because after this number, the equation ends with infinite as a result. Mathematicians are still to calculate exactly what happened at the time of the bang :)
To answer your question "What created matter?" simply: Nothing did. Matter, in a universal sense always existed because nothing can exist but our univese, as far as we know. Time itself was the central "cause" of the big bang because before the big bang--there was no "before" and therefore the question of "how did it bang" is just that "time began." You can't do work on the universe when time isn't active, so if time becomes active and the universe as a compacted mass is there, it will explode into the universe as we know it today. Maybe its just me, but I find this explanation more reasonable than "God made it" because it only begs the question of what made God and if we're just going to say God was always there, it seems only reasonable (Occam's Razor-style) that the universe might as well have just always been there instead of mucking up our understanding of the universe with gods.
To answer your question not so simply: I just did a bit of work about the topic with my physics teacher this past week, so I'll give a rundown of what I came up with below.
The universe at the moment of "bang" is constrained by a few separate laws, even though technically speaking the laws may or may not have any relevance on the universe as a whole at such high energies as the point of "creation" it is generally understood that if these things are equivelant then it will work out:
Basically speaking, due to part of Relativity theory ((GM/r)=c^2), quantum mechanics [uncertainty principle] ((Mc^2)t)=h/2pi) and also from another part of relativity theory based purely on the speed of light (r=ct) to make sense of space time, quantum gravity requires that all three of these equations hold simultaneously. Using the accepted values of G(gravitational constant), c(speed of light, which is constant), and h(Planck's constant) one finds that:
M(mass of the universe) = 2.2x10^-8kq
r(size of the universe) = 1.6x10^-35m
t(time the bang could possibly occur) = 5.3 x10^-44s
These are basically just Planck's mass, distance and time, which dictate the limit that each of these properties can be at, for if time were any smaller then the amount wouldn't make any sense in terms of any other equation you try to make.
A consequence of this picture of space and time is that the smallest unit of space is Planck's length (1.6x10^-35m), since any distance smaller than that, which was taken up by a Planck's mass would be too unstable and therefore coming and going out of existence all the time. According to this picture, the universe at a quantum level, such as when the big bang occurred, is chaotic to say the least, and comes into existence at a length of time equal to Planck's time. Distances or times less than these lengths would be meaningless because they would not be time or distance-like, but instead particle-like.
Summary of Thoughts on Principle
In the beginning, time was at 5.3 x10^-44s [aka, unit t] (15 billion years ago) and the universe was condensed and static because nothing could move so long as time equaled that. Everything was at an extremely small state compacted and trapped inside a ball of space smaller than anything possible. This was possible because time was not allowing the laws of physics to work their usual reasonable actions on space. At the big bang, time "began", which made time excell to a higher unit of speed, which removed the tension of the universe's condensed state because it was allowed to move more freely. It began ultimately without cause because at time unit t, no laws worked properly, so causality is no longer of any use to reasoning why the acts of time’s start occurred. i.e. The "why" the universe exists needs no "why" because this analysis gives a "how" that, I believe, explains well enough why such a bang would occur, while I do confess that it doesn't say "why" it began at that moment per se, I can at least explain why it would've began in the first place because of the how.
At high energy levels, such as when time was at unit t, and the universe was condensed in a high energy state, physical laws and the forces of nature break down and/or combine. When time is at t the laws remain stagnant and shortly thereafter time sped up into its normal state, the laws began to have an impact and individual power. The uncertainty of time's predictability is cause enough for the big bang's existence and the start of time, seeing as time does not need a reason to start or stop and can do so at anytime without anyone noticing, which is allowable through quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle. Just as time can slow down when objects move closer to the speed of light, it has the capability of stopping completely. The plane of space-time breaks down just as all physical laws do at time when it is at zero state.
Time is the root of "cause" for big bang phenomena and exists more naturally than any dimension of space, as the spatial realm itself doesn’t hamper it, although the size of space and time remains limited to a point, if Planck's constants still apply.
Overview of laws and time idea:
If laws aren't working, time = zero.
If laws are working, time = one.
Causality and Newton's 3rd law break down and the supposed "1st cause" isn't necessary at the point of "creation".
How space works into the equation of time itself:
1) Space-Time can exist only when time exists alongside it. (A)
2) The laws of space exist only when time is active. (B)
3) If time doesn't exist [in the sense that nothing can move out of its tense state] then space can exist without the cause of physical laws. (A, B)
If space-time is reduced to a state wherein time is at t, then space itself can only exist at a state wherein time's stoppage allows nothing to occur. Therefore it is possible for space to bang into existence, so long as time is the central cause of its creation.
Wow, you explain things better than my physics teacher :D
Miss Darcy,
I must say I do like the way you think.
Have you ever wondered why it is that Christians don't pray for God and the Devil to be mates again? I mean it would solve a lot of problems wouldn't it?
And, God being omniscient, it comes as a surprise that he even created the angel that become Satan, doesn't it?
Furthermore, I'm convinced Hell would be much more fun than heaven. Im sure the best sex happens in Hell, for instance.
I too agree with the argument about us being products of our environement. In answer to SubT, in the case of sexual abuse amongst men in robes, that too is an environmental factor: I mean all that repressed sexuality, and the psychological effects that abuse has upon the victim, then of course its no wonder that sexual abuse is well-documented amongst the clergy.
AP
Thanks. It helps that I'm not too keen on mathematics, so I tend to absorb a lot of the theory more efficiently. I've spent a lot of time on the big bang though, so probably just experience in the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Molko
Not to mention my physics teacher is awesome. heh
Edit: I worked out the equations just tonight as well and it turns out that, if I'm looking at the situation correctly, all three (relativity, quantum, more relativity) equation sets do work together at that point in time, so it seems fesible to believe that this idea is physicall sound in terms of the science involved.
<I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen Roberts. >
I love this quote from MD's post. I have suspected for some time that Christians are fakes. This seems to succinctly state that suspicion.
I suppose there are many methapors and figurative sentences in the Bible or Ghita or Qoran..:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Darcy
Point is in a way, holy texts are just like other literature REGARDLESS you believe them as words of God or not..
mm...i think after a point books should be thrown away (like when they're not doing anyone any good). to quote a beloved spiritual teacher of mine, "truth is not contained in any one book; it is contained in the heart." i mean, there's only so much that reading's gonna do for you. look at the puritans in the in the 1600's, slavery, and later manifest destiny in the u.s. and a whole bunch of things all over the globe. it really takes living, not reading.
This thread has contains a poll designed to elicit personal opinions as to the origin of mankind. Several options are available to choose from, and although polls are the least scientific method of gathering data, we can at least see what visitors to this site hold as a personal belief: Evolution, Creationism, Not Sure What to think, None Of The Above....
My question is this; 8.7 % of those polled have chosen "None Of The Above." How can this be an option? What theory is espoused by these 8.7% who have chosen this ballot? *Wonders if the 8.7% solution will reply*
Americans' acceptance of 'Creationism' has been making the news here in the UK. According to recent reports, education authorities in one state (can't remember which, but I presume in the Bible belt) have banned the teaching of evolution and instead have replaced it with 'creationism as a fact'. Is this true or just typical media sensationalism?
Creationism hasn't "replaced" evolution in schools, but some educators and groups are trying to get it taught alongside evolution as an alternative to scientific fact. They believe it is a matter of equal tolerance of each side of the issue and feel that each should get their own allotted teaching time. However, those attempting to do this are only trying to get the Judeo-Christian version of creationism taught, rather than all creationism stories as valid alternative views, which therein lies the issue that makes their cause so damned wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkie
They did put stickers on biology books that said "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" in Georgia and a few places in Tennessee, but the stickers in Georgia were ruled unconstitutional. Personally I'd be fine with them teaching it alongside evolution, seeing as the only evidence for creation is told in one solitary book full of stories, whereas all the evidence for evolution is told in epirical fossil structures, experiment, etc. If anything it'd hurt those fighting for creationism in the schools, seeing as they wouldn't have much to back up their cause outside of outright religious preaching, which would subsequently be ruled unconstitutional to do in public schools.
So yes, it is sensationalism, but over here it's more of a "Oh these poor Christians are being oppressed by science in schools and are children are being force-fed facts instead of being taught thought." It's absurd to me, and I'm glad to you as well, but it apparently has some fuel to be fired in the US that isn't going away anytime soon. So long as adherence to belief over reasoned knowledge is thought of as noble, the issue will continue to arise.
If you ask me (this is my personal opinion, which I'm NOT forcing on anybody) this Big Bang or Crunch theory is simply ridiculous. Right, let's put it in this light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Darcy
Suppose you were baking a cake. You'd have to measure all the ingredients first, and mix them together in the specific way that the recipe says. But if looking at the evolutionary way, there happened to be abit of flour on the counter, when a bucket of water happened to fall, thus mixing the 2 together, and then the sugar appeared and mixed itself.... It wouldn't even turn out to be a cake!!! It would be some soppy mess!
How much more do you think about this world? How much consideration has been put into it. how much effort at designing has been put into it. No explosion could have created the beautiful "round" world as it is. The universe and the galaxies, and the other planets. No big bang through time would have been able to make the planets run so smoothly for thousands of years. Think about it. No evolution could have formed all the genes and cells and chromosome that make a life. It is impossible!!! Not one in infinity would it ever make somthing like man (or animals or plants, for that matter). No, God had to have planned, and created each of us uniquely and perfectly as we are. Evolution would never have formed all the intricately designed vein of each individual leaf, etc.
In the natural law, when left to themselves, things would degenerate, not become better!!! Imagine if I left the soppy mess on the floor, and transported myself through time for billions of years, it would NEVER become a piece of cake!! Instead, you would find the house gone!!! (Due to natural decay, etc.) If YOU went away for a holiday, you wouldn't expect to find your house all new and sparkling when you came back!! NO! You would expect to find dust and maybe abit of cobwebs around the house. (And that is only for a few days!!!) What would a billion years do to your house?!?? :lol:
Think seriously about it. :nod:
First off, I always find it quite intriguing that theists have trouble believing that the universe acts this way out of natural capability yet have no trouble believing that some all powerful being can act without limits whenever it wants without any evidence but a good hunch (seeing as you can never show evidence of something supernatural, so long as you exist in the natural realm). And Darcy, my apologies for replying to what he addressed to you, I couldn't help myself.
Sheesh, bad analogy. Gravity's waves and the cyclical motion that results in it, moving along with centrifugal force of their masses would nearly always end up wittling a planet down to a "round" shape. Seeing as when it was first forming, it was a liquid hot molten mass, which guess what, was made round by its rotation. Neat eh? Try spinning water around inside a bottle and see the cyclical motion it makes when you do it, if that water were to harden into ice as you moved it, it'd be quite circular, or at least round. That's just natural law. Strike 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adelheid
First of all, considering the Big Bang is an accepted theory right now, I'd say that there's adequate evidence in reality alone that everything has run smoothly for thousands, even billions, of years without the outside influence of a deity. The way gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces act together make the methodology of the big bang and our universe as a whole work beautifully. It doesn't run smoothly, in a sense, either. It blows up in supernovae all the time, has planets destroyed by gamma ray bursts, asteroids, and just plain destabilized forces, not to mention the way that black holes are at the center of most galaxies, therefore making an inherent stupidity to any designer's concept of a smooth running universe, seeing as it would suck in and destroy most everything in time, even though it'd equal out eventually. Strike 2, perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adelheid
Impossible? It's already happened, you're just not willing to believe it. Take the Miller/Urey experiment back in the 1950s. They put inorganic matter inside a test tube, let it sit, hit it with short lightening bursts (such as to simulate the Earth when it was 4 billion years old) and got 15% of the inorganic matter to turn into organic matter, as well as 2% into amino acids (the building blocks of life) in one week's time. Imagine how much progress could occur in that system with a billion years to evolve in. Amino acids is a base compound of RNA and DNA, so however complex and impossible you feel it is to occur, these experiments alone show your presumptions as quite absurd. Strike 3, take a seat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adelheid
I do enjoy how people equate evolution with dumping inorganic crap around your house and letting it sit to see if any aliens form. Natural decay, sure, but if your house was still powered and gave electricity sporatically throughout your house you'd have some complex organisms in that house when you returned. They'd be mostly microscopic, but probably enough of them there to be visible. Chaos doesn't necessarily imply the lack of order or design. Just because the sun explodes eventually doesn't mean that it is outlandish to believe that it still works now. It will explode, possibly fall back onto itself, create a white dwarf, possibly compact further and create a black hole, thereby distorting space itself and taking in everything around it. Order can arise from disorder just as disorder can arise from order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adelheid
The addition of a god to the equation of how the universe works only further complicates life itself. The universe is complex and incomprehensible, but we've enough comprehension so far to explain things to a reasonable degree. Personally I think you're just unwilling to accept the fact that science is pretty good at explaining the basics and would rather make the basics (big bang, evolution, even how planets form) into something more compact and faith-based. It's fine to believe what you will about how the world works, but reasonably speaking, if an explanation is valid, experimented and observed as correct to the point where its damned near impossible to prove it wrong, to not believe it out of simplicity alone seems a bit absurd.
Then again, faith is believing in something despite evidence to the contrary in some cases, so I can't assume you're one to take the position of reason alone. God isn't meant to be understood, as Christians usually say, so I certainly don't assume any extremely reasonable solution to the world's problems would change their minds one bit about whether or not God did it.
I love this quote:
" We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which men tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the ever shifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles." :lol:
Scientific theory evolves to be more accurate over time.
Religious faith evolves to be more acceptable to different people over time.
I've a few quotes as well, which are shown in the quote thread, but I'll display them again here. To your quote's ideas of ignorance as being science's true purpose: "The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge." -Elbert Hubbard. It is only after you stop trying to explain the world as it is that you ever truly become ignorant. Understanding is an evolving process.
To the concept of the Bible truly meaning anything over time, I give you this quote: "If you take the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind and the rain." - Carol McGrath, a Native American. The acceptance of the natural realm as accurate is the first step to being able to stop and describe how it works.
By the way, good job not responding to any of my analysis of your follying judgements about how science, or even the world, works. I do what I can to reply with my own opinion on subjects in kind to at least see if I can defend them, I'd appreciate it if at least some attempt to volley a return defense was waged instead of running to shove your head into the sand through wise men's words.