posted
this is a question that was just addressed at the first 'Crisis in Cosmology" conference, held in Monção, Portugal, which just finished 4 days ago.
Alot of respected scientists have problems with the current cosmological model (the Big Bang, which traces all of existence back to a singularity), and because of this, this conference was created, to further and promote research into alternative theories (many of which are now gaining ground among scientists).
I'm not an authority on cosmological physics, but aparently, there are alot of problems with the big bang theory that we all learned from a young age, and many famous and respected scientists have had problems with it, from Newton to Einstein to Hawking.
Considering that the big bang theory is endorsed by the Pope (as it affirms that there was a beginning to time which cannot be explained, in accordance with christian belief in a diety which started said creation), this could have some pretty intense implications, and i can see this issue getting very controversial. What do you guys think?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the big bang model of the universe is flawed, because we cannot scientifically explain why it happened. god doesn't really factor into my opinions so much, so i would welcome alternative theories, and a change in said theories would not affect me very much. that is why i was wondering for people who do hold beliefs that are maybe tied to the big bang or a similar creation model, how they will react
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Nothing says good, hard science like posters!
they're not the type of "posters" you're thinking of. at science conferences, people and companies put up "posters" to announce what papers they are working on or publishing Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm willing to bet "endorsement" is a strong word... the Catholic Church got out of the Cosmology business when it realized Aristotle's model had flaws.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it there are a number of other possible interpretations of the data which deserve investigation. For example, a noted astronomer (Arp) believes that Quasars emerge from galaxies. These quasars have a much greater redshift than the galaxies they emerge from, which in turn suggests that the doppler hypothesis as used to support the idea that everything is moving away from everything else is wrong.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
no, one of the big things the pope (the last pope) did was to fully endorse the big bang model of the cosmos. he was trying to reconcile religion and science, and because the big bang model left room for a creator, it was perfect
posted
Well, no. John Paul II stated that belief in evolution and the BigBang did not contradict Christianity. Which is quite different from saying that RomanCatholics should believe in the BigBang or evolution.
I wrote in favor of the reverse-Hawking BigCrunch scenario way back in the days of the Dr.Neutrino physics website, well before the ever-increasing Expansion flummoxing BigBang theorists was discovered. And well before m-brane collisions were a part of Origin discussions.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:. . . because we cannot scientifically explain why it happened.
How can we not? Please elaborate.
[/QUOTE]
ok well the big bang postulates that some time ago (we're talking billions of yrs.) there was a singularity, and that was the universe. then, all of a sudden, BIG BANG, and it started expanding outwards, getting bigger and bigger (im not going into details here people, so please dont attack my science, i dont feel like getting into specifics) until it became our universe.
what this model leaves out is WHY is started expanding, WHAT was there before (time started at the big bag?) etc. it leaves alot of unanswered questions
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, we're agreeing an awful lot lately. Do I need to adjust my medication or do you need to adjust yours? Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:im not going into details here people, so please dont attack my science, i dont feel like getting into specifics
Then why did you start a thread? Why make a statement like "the big bang is seriously not reals, yo" and then not back it up? That's boring.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:im not going into details here people, so please dont attack my science, i dont feel like getting into specifics
Then why did you start a thread? Why make a statement like "the big bang is seriously not reals, yo" and then not back it up? That's boring.
like i said, im not an astrophysicist or cosmologist, i would be illequiped to discuss technicalities regarding the big bang theory. i started this thread because i was more concerned about the implications that a change in cosmological models would have on people, that was my question
EDIT: also, your question pertained to a comment i made along the lines of, there are alot of aspects about the big bang that cannot be explained scientifically, and i responded to your inquiry on that statement. as for the things that we can explain scientifically, i didn't want to get into them, because that wasn't your question, right?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Modern science tells us a story that can be summed up as follows-- "Humpty Dumpty is falling." Because it rests entirely on observations taken during the fall, it can't really explore where the wall came from, where Humpty came from, and how he got up there to begin with.
No matter what version of the birth of the universe you come up with, whether the universe is an ongoing, eternal cycle or had a definite beginning, you still have *something* self-existent from eternity and unexplainable by science.
Everyone laugh at me for being a Thomist, but it's still true Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
first off, who gives a damn what the Pope thinks? He's no scientist. and of course we can't explain what happned that caused the Big Bang, we can't explain what happnes in any quantum singularity. as for the whole Infinite Fractal Universe, you realize that was written by a geologist. I mean come on.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
A big collapse, or the universe's previous evolution coming to an end and collapsing in on itself, which is the only event that could pack enough matter into a singularity to set up a big bang.
It's my uninformed theorem that all time is cyclical, and there was no beginning nor will there be an ending. Our current state of being has been duplicated before, and will be again, on a timescale so vast we'll never be able to fully comprehend it.
Or, for another theory, read Asimov's "The Last Question".
Not really a theory, btw, but still a good read, and Asimov's favorite of all the stories he wrote.
/Anyone need to borrow my tinfoil hat?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
actually, your theory is a valid scientific theory.. shit i forget what article it was that i read it in. one of the scienc ones about a year ago, it talking about how 2 guys who were famous mathematicians were working on a cyclical model for the universe which would explain the big bang in a way similar to the way you just did... cant think of the name of the journal though
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There might not be anything before the big bang, including a before.
That is, the various time-arrows may not exist, or at least lack directionality, prior to the organizing event of the big bang.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
maybe the big crunch was in a parallel universe and the gravity was so strong at the center that it opend a wormhole into our space. if the matter came through not all at once, that might explain how those molicules could spred out, there was no singularity on our end of the wormhole. Just runoff atoms. what'cha think?
Posts: 128 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I too have intuitive problems with the big bang.
Whenever someone asks how I believe the universe came to be, I would say "I don't know" "You don't believe in the big bang?" "Meh".
It's usually a theist arguing against the flaws of the "scientific" theory of the creation. If its wrong, its no big deal to me. My inuitive response is that it doesn't really explain much. You need to get deep into theology or philosophy to explain the rest.
"So how did all the matter get there?" "We aren't sure, it just was"
"What was before the big bang?" "Perhaps nothing, time started there"
"Then what caused it?" "We don't know"
But I never made the mistake of believing that scientists thought of the Big Bang as a complete explanation. Just what was the scenario which seemed to best fit with the evidence. Which is all science can ever do, really.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the Humpty Dumpty analogy is one of the most apt I've heard in a long time. You show up in the middle of the fall, there're only so many conclusions you can draw about its cause.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theories are not right or wrong I think. They are just our best current explanation of observed phenomenon.
As we observe more, or come up with new theories, we subscribe to the theories that seem to best fit the observed data.
With an expanding universe, big bang was the logical beginning of that expansion.
Perhaps more detailed and powerful recent observations have called that belief into question and newer theories are surfacing which must then be compared against those observations.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, Astronomy magazine had an article on him in March, but I can't find a link online, other that to say that you can find the article in the magazine.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I meant, Glenn, is claiming to be an authoritative speaker on it... I didn't mean that we had no more interest in it, or even no stake in the question, just much less in the way of dogmatic positions.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think Jay really believes that stuff.
Anyway, whatever theory you choose, you are going to have either a first cause, or an infinite regress. The human mind is not happy with either, so if that's your only objection to the Big Bang, no possible theory is going to please you.
Also, I understand there are some development in theoretical particle physics that will explain how the Big Bang came to be, if they work out. 'Why' is usually not a question scientists care much about. We leave that for theologists, astrologers, and numerologists. It's usually a null question at some point anyway.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Big Bang Theory says that the universe erupted from a bunch of mass the size of a pin. Then what created the original mass?
Posts: 163 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why God, of course . . . but wait if God created everything, what created God?!
Of course, if you argue he is eternal, then you could just eliminate him and argue the universe (or matter, at least) is eternal.
There are other ways out, too, see my comment about time above.
Simply put, there's likely no way we can know, and any attempt to "logic" your way to some "proven" answer will be easily defeated.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
