What created the Big Bang

The non amateur stuff. Hawking, black holes, that sort of thing

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

Post Reply
B14vin5
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:33 am
Location: Skelmorlie
Contact:

What created the Big Bang

Post by B14vin5 »

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

RL Astro
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Re: What created the Big Bang

Post by RL Astro »

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 :oops: )
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 :wink:

B14vin5
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:33 am
Location: Skelmorlie
Contact:

Post by B14vin5 »

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

orson
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:09 pm
Contact:

Post by orson »

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
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:51 pm
Contact:

Post by big_kev »

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
Posts: 3303
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 6:11 pm
Location: Portslade, Sussex Lat 50deg 51min Long 0deg 13mins West
Contact:

Post by mike a feist »

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
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:08 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Deimos »

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
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:09 pm
Contact:

Post by orson »

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
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:08 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Deimos »

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
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by RL Astro »

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
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:47 pm
Location: Wallsend
Contact:

Post by astropete »

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.

gyro
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:37 pm
Contact:

Post by gyro »

astropete wrote:my theory, our universe is the result of a matter particle accelerator unit being switched on.
We should be so lucky :lol:
Latest from Cern is for an Autumn test...maybe :(

orson
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:09 pm
Contact:

Post by orson »

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
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:51 pm
Contact:

Post by big_kev »

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

gyro
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:37 pm
Contact:

Post by gyro »

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/

.

Post Reply