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 )

_________________
Astronomer from a small planet near Betelguise.
Has come to study Earth with small portable 114mm telescope.

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

Thanks RL astro

_________________
Astronomer from a small planet near Betelguise.
Has come to study Earth with small portable 114mm telescope.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

_________________
150mm short focus 710mm eq3 no drive scope. 8mp samsung Nv4 digital camera, e/p 4,6,10,12.5,15,20,25,32,40,20-70 zoom.
127mm sky watcher super track auto.

We should be so lucky
Latest from Cern is for an Autumn test...maybe

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

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/

.