The Big Bang Theory! Do you believe it? Poll!

[Petros Agapetos]

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?

The Big Bang theory states that around 13.7 billion years ago the universe was condensed into an incredibly small, hot, dense "ball" of space and time. Some have speculated that it emerged from an infinitely dense and small object known as a singularity but most scientists prefer other hypotheses.

Physical cosmology
The name "Big Bang" is somewhat of a misnomer, since the universe did not expand in a conventional sense and didn't explode or produce sound as we normally understand it. The first fraction of a second saw significant changes in the way forces, matter and energy existed and was very unlike the universe as we currently observe it. The universe expanded very rapidly by a process called "inflation". As the expansion continued, the universe cooled, eventually reaching a point at which long lived particles of matter could "freeze out" of a mixture of mass and energy which was previously in continual flux and collide with each other to form the first simple atoms. Over billions of years, these particles combined to form "clouds" of matter which further condensed, because of gravitational attraction, into stars and planets. Atoms progressively formed "heavier" elements in stars through the process of nuclear fusion.

The history of the universe can be described in some detail back to the instant approximately 10-43 seconds after the big bang. What precisely occurred in the first 10-43 seconds (the Planck epoch) is current unknown with many competing theories, due to interactions between the theories of gravitation and quantum mechanics.

[Petros Agapetos]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?198591-How-the-Universe-began&highlight=Universe
How the universe began...

[Petros Agapetos]

Did the universe come from ex nihilo "nothing"?

There is a common misconception that the Big Bang means that the universe "came from nothing." This is a straw man argument. What occurred in the very early universe is still a mystery. What, if anything, came before the Big Bang is a mystery.

Apologists claim that without God, the laws of thermodynamics would be violated. At this point, we do not even know if the universe is a close system, which is fundamental assumption of thermodynamics. Also, thermodynamics have not been validated in the very early universe; physicists are still struggling with much more basic problems.

Since the energy of the universe may be zero, or close to it (gravatational energy is negative), the entire universe may be a long lived quantum fluctuation.

[Petros Agapetos]

Speculations on the pre-Big Bang universe

The oscillatory universe is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce. (This theory has declined in popularity since 1998, when astronomers reported evidence that the acceleration of the universe's expansion continues unabated.) To support the claim that the age of the universe is finite, apologists also point to the second law of thermodynamics which seems to imply entropy would continue to rise. However, there are several speculative theories as to how entropy might be reset in the early universe (and ignoring that makes the entropy argument an argument from ignorance).

The universe existed forever but somehow eventually developed into a Big Bang. Some models predict a beginning-less universe with no singularity but still featuring a Big Bang.

Cosmological natural selection is a speculative hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin. Smolin speculates that every black hole might contain another universe inside it. Thus, our universe might be a black hole inside another universe. Each universe shares properties and fundamental constants with its "parent" universe, but may be slightly different. Thus--according to this theory--universes evolve over time, and the ones that are particularly well suited to produce black holes are the ones that thrive.

The multiverse hypothesis suggests that there are already multiple parallel universes, generated in a meta-universe.
There may be no such thing as a pre-Big Bang universe.

Our intuition about time is based on the environment we live in (and evolved in), with small accelerations and a relatively flat spacetime. In highly curved regions of spacetime, those intuitions break down.

As an analogy, "north" is a direction that is more or less constant in most cities. But the direction "north" in Los Angeles is not parallel to the direction "north" in Berlin because of the curvature of the earth. In fact, going north from any point will eventually lead to the north pole because the earth is a sphere. At the north pole itself there is no direction of "north" because every point around it is farther south than it is.

Similarly, "towards the past" is not a direction that is the same for every point in spacetime, but rather going back in time from any point leads back to the big bang. If there is no previous universe from which our universe sprung, it may be that there is a "past pole", or a finite region of spacetime around which every other point is farther in the future. It would be meaningless to talk about what happened before this time, because there would be no such thing as a "before" that. The universe would either be uncaused or the "cause" would be something that did not precede it in time.

None of these concepts have been conclusively demonstrated, but they do illustrate that God isn't the only possible answer (See Wikipedia:Cosmogony for more information).

[hedonist]

it's possible I don't believe that it just happened out of coincidence though

[Petros Agapetos]

In common parlance, a theory is a hunch or guess about something (e.g., "I have a theory that my teacher is an alien"). In science, however, a theory is an explanation of a set of observations that has been tested and found to be well-supported by evidence (e.g., "the theory of relativity"). The common usage of the word theory is closer in meaning to hypothesis in science: a plausible (or possible) explanation.

The distinction between a theory and a hypothesis (or even a guess) is an important one, and ignoring it leads to the kind of equivocation in apologetics exemplified by the claim that "evolution is only a theory".

As defined by Kevin Padian in his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial:

"A theory, in science, [is] a very large body of information that's withstood a lot of testing. It probably consists of a number of different hypotheses, many different lines of evidence. And it's something that is very difficult to slay with an ugly fact, as Huxley once put it, because it's just a complex body of work that's been worked on through time."

— Kitzmiller v. Dover trial transcript, day 9, a.m. session

[Petros Agapetos]

it's possible I don't believe that it just happened out of coincidence though

Do you think the Big Bang Theory implies the beginning of our universe is accidental?

Do you think the Big Bang is a proper scientific theory that is supported by the evidence or do you just regard it as a plausible hypothesis?

[Petros Agapetos]

An hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. In philosophy, it is a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Many apologists use the term "theory" in place of "hypothesis". This equivocation leads to the "Evolution is only a theory" argument

Evidence is, in a general sense, anything used to support an assertion. The standards used to determine what sort of evidence is acceptable can vary, depending on the situation.

What may qualify as evidence in a casual argument might not qualify in a formal debate, legal proceeding or scientific investigation. Hearsay, for example, is often used in casual conversation to support a claim, but it isn't permissible in most courtrooms. In science, evidence is usually expected to be empirically observable and repeatable. Additionally, if a piece of evidence implicates more than one cause, additional evidence should be presented to exclude the other possibilities. Scientific experimentation depends on the analysis of many observations in order to determine consistent patterns and to reduce elements of chance or uncertainty. Any claims, or hypotheses, derived from observations must be falsifiable if disconfirming evidence is observed.

Below is a list of the standards of evidence in science, as well as why each standard is important. Each qualification for evidence is meant to minimize error and maximize accuracy, so the evidence can be as useful as possible.

[Insuperable]

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?

Do you believe that it is true?

Do you trust it?

It is supported by evidences so obviously.


The Big Bang theory states that around 13.7 billion years ago the universe was condensed into an incredibly small, hot, dense "ball" of space and time. Some have speculated that it emerged from an infinitely dense and small object known as a singularity but most scientists prefer other hypotheses.

Ball of space and time??? Why not a cube of space and time? This must be some stupid newreporter slang. According to our current understanding of the Big Bang theory time and space emerged with the Big Bang, but nobody can say anything for sure. It was neither a ball or dot or this or that. If anything it was a 'point' with zero volume and infinite density so how can it be a ball of space then? That is what we get based on General Theory equations at t=0 - the Universe compressing to zero volume and infinite density, basically a singularity. This could also mean (and most likely) that the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum physics too are not complete theories since both of them break down at this point. Physicists hope that a unification of general theory with quantum physics (quantum gravity) would allow physicists to peer deeper in time (maybe time less than Planck's time).

[Petros Agapetos]

It is supported by evidences so obviously.



Ball of space and time??? Why not a square of space and time? This must be some stupid newreporter slang. According to our current understanding of the Big Bang theory time and space emerged with the Big Bang, but nobody can say anything for sure.. It was neither a ball or dot or this or that. If anything it was a 'point' with zero volume and infinite density so how can it be a ball of space then?. That is what we get based on General Theory equations at t=0 - the Universe compressing to zero volume and infinite density, basically a singularity. This could also mean (and most likely) that the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum physics too are not a complete theory since both of them break down at this point. Physicists hope that a unification of general theory with quantum gravity would allow physicists to peer deeper in time (time less than Planck's time).

The point of zero volume and infinite density that you are describing is called the singularity. Science does not yet consider the singularity to be a fact. What is understood is the nearly 14 billion years of cosmic evolution after the Planck time, 10^-43 seconds. Before the Planck time, the current laws of physics as we know them break down because there was only one fundamental force then (now there are four: electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces). The singularity is not a sure thing.

[Insuperable]

The point of zero volume and infinite density that you are describing is called the singularity. Science does not yet consider the singularity to be a fact. What is understood is the nearly 14 billion years of cosmic evolution after the Planck time, 10^-43 seconds. Before the Planck time, the current laws of physics as we know them break down because there was only one fundamental force then (now there are four: electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces). The singularity is not a sure thing.

I have never said it is a sure thing, but that it is a part of the standard model along with the (although not 100% verified) standard theory of inflation

[Svipdag]

Whether anyone BELIEVES a scientific hypothesis or theory is completely irrelevant. The validity of a scientific hypothesis or theory is not a matter of belief but of success in accounting for observational and experimental FACTS ! The evolutionary cosmology, a.k.a. "Big Bang" theory accounts for the observed expansion of the universe better than any of the alternative, now mostly discarded, explanations. This is true whether Svipdag or Hawking, or Joe Blow believes it or not. If it works, it is accepted, at least faute de mieux.

The major rival hypothesis, Fred Hoyle's "Steady State universe" has been disproved by radio astronomy observations.
The "Pulsating Universe" hypothesis is not scientific in that it is unprovable. At best, it is a fascinating speculation. In
accounting for the facts of observational astronomy, then, the evolutionary cosmology has no serious rivals. Let those who disbelieve in the "Big Bang" theory offer an alternative explanation which better accounts for the facts of astronomical observation.

SCIENTIA NON HABET INIMICVM NISI IGNORANTEM

Anonymous

[Iloko]

I'm more inclined to believe in Biocentrism instead:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_F4nOKDSM

[Journeyman26]

Whether anyone BELIEVES a scientific hypothesis or theory is completely irrelevant. The validity of a scientific hypothesis or theory is not a matter of belief but of success in accounting for observational and experimental FACTS ! The evolutionary cosmology, a.k.a. "Big Bang" theory accounts for the observed expansion of the universe better than any of the alternative, now mostly discarded, explanations. This is true whether Svipdag or Hawking, or Joe Blow believes it or not. If it works, it is accepted, at least faute de mieux.

The major rival hypothesis, Fred Hoyle's "Steady State universe" has been disproved by radio astronomy observations.
The "Pulsating Universe" hypothesis is not scientific in that it is unprovable. At best, it is a fascinating speculation. In
accounting for the facts of observational astronomy, then, the evolutionary cosmology has no serious rivals. Let those who disbelieve in the "Big Bang" theory offer an alternative explanation which better accounts for the facts of astronomical observation.

SCIENTIA NON HABET INIMICVM NISI IGNORANTEM

Anonymous

Preach!

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I believe in a new version of the Cyclic model. It's a dash of sexy, a pinch of swag, and a whole lot of charm.

[hedonist]

Do you think the Big Bang Theory implies the beginning of our universe is accidental?

Do you think the Big Bang is a proper scientific theory that is supported by the evidence or do you just regard it as a plausible hypothesis?

my own personal belief is there is a subconscious intelligence that is not necessarily sentient but connected and acting in concert in all things, even the void. So no I don't believe it was entirely by chance.