What created the Big Bang

B14vin5 · Post by **B14vin5** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:24 pm

Every Astrophycists think a big bang created the universe but does anyone know what created the Big Bang itself

(I think it was gases but I m not sure

)

RL Astro · Post by **RL Astro** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:49 pm

B14vin5 wrote:Every Astrophycists think a big bang created the universe but does anyone know what created the Big Bang itself (I think it was gases but I m not sure )

Gases being made of atoms, which were created after the Big Bang. So wasn't them.

I read today that one theory (string theory probably, although it never said) says it could have been formed from two branes colliding in higher dimensional space. Can't remember much more though. Something to do with Calabi-Yau shapes and the universe being just a tiny dot on the branes of one of these shapes in higher dimensional space. Sorry. Very vague I know. But it can't have been gases. They didn't exist back then

B14vin5 · Post by **B14vin5** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:03 pm

Thanks RL astro

orson · Post by **orson** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:44 pm

But aren't branes just a theory too? Will we ever discover what caused the big bang? If indeed there ever was one!

big_kev · Post by **big_kev** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:48 pm

Time itself was created by the big bang, therefore time did not exist previous to the big bang.

Therefore there was no "before the big bang".

Therefore the big bang was not created......it was an event without a cause.
"The verb create implies a time dimension"

Any other explanation still raises the problem of "well what caused that ?"

No I don't like this answer either, but I prefer it to the "god" alternative.

mike a feist · Post by **mike a feist** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:04 am

Yes, it is all just theory.....I am not even convinced about the "big bang". The althernative is not "god" but......."it is impossible to know and let's get on with life". MAF

Deimos · Post by **Deimos** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:43 am

One thing I am sure about is that the Big Bang did not happen as we currently suppose. I think of it as a "model" that fits some of the observable facts. As additional facts are discovered, additional theories gain better acceptance, so the Big Bang "model" will be developed, be modified, etc. It may be that over time the "model" needs so much changing that it might change name and become something quite different.

To me it is not a matter of "believing" or "not believing" more a matter of the current model being wrong (maybe trivially "wrong" in only small detail, but who will ever be able to say how wrong). It does seem to fit most of the observed fact and established theories - which makes it useful.

To me, it being "wrong" does not make it any less useful or less interesting.

Ian

orson · Post by **orson** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:14 am

I think you can question what caused the 'big bang' without implying that a god had anything to do with it. The fact is that nobody knows what caused it, in just the same way that nobody actually knows if there is a god out there! It's all theory.

Deimos · Post by **Deimos** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:23 am

orson wrote:I think you can question what caused the 'big bang' without implying that a god had anything to do with it. The fact is that nobody knows what caused it, in just the same way that nobody actually knows if there is a god out there! It's all theory.

But there is a big difference. The theories about the Big Bang are based on measurable and reproducible observations. It is open to questions and review as other observations are made. People can look at the observations and review how well the theories/hypotheses fit.

Ian

RL Astro · Post by **RL Astro** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:41 am

orson wrote:But aren't branes just a theory too? Will we ever discover what caused the big bang? If indeed there ever was one!

Indeed they are just a theory. If they are 'true' (using that word loosely) then they could potentially explain what caused the big bang. Basically falling under the Multiverse theory. I know that raises questions of "well what created the multiverse?" but that's not the question being asked here.

astropete · Post by **astropete** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:17 pm

my theory, our universe is the result of a matter particle accelerator unit being switched on.

gyro · Post by **gyro** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:28 pm

astropete wrote:my theory, our universe is the result of a matter particle accelerator unit being switched on.

We should be so lucky

Latest from Cern is for an Autumn test...maybe

orson · Post by **orson** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:02 pm

astropete wrote:my theory, our universe is the result of a matter particle accelerator unit being switched on.

So, you're suggesting that man created the universe?

big_kev · Post by **big_kev** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:30 am

mike a feist wrote: The althernative is not "god"

And your proof of this is ?

gyro · Post by **gyro** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:03 am

big_kev wrote:
mike a feist wrote: The althernative is not "god"
And your proof of this is ?

I think most of us appreciate listening to Allan Chapman, here he is talking about his take on Science and Religion.

July 6th podcast on "365 Days of Astronomy".

http://365daysofastronomy.org/

.

Society for Popular Astronomy

What created the Big Bang

What created the Big Bang

Re: What created the Big Bang