What caused the Big Bang?

[pgrmdave]

Now if this were the case, then wouldn't all the galaxies that we see speeding away from us all eventually end up at one common point?

 

Not if you hold true to comparing the earth to the universe. In reality, the universe expands, taking the galaxies with it. In the analogy, imagine the earth expanding, taking people with it. It would appear to every observer that everybody was moving away from them, but they'd never get any closer.

[Aireal]

Instead of repeating a post, check out my post on this thread.

 

More on this interesting subject latter.

 

Well it won't let me post a link so here is the post again.

 

 

The Big Bang theory is far from the only theory that offers an explaination for the origin of the universe. Personally I feel that it is the least likely one to be correct. Please excuse the mention of God on a science forum, but the big bang theory is so full of holes, it does more to prove the existance of God than any other, as it almost needs God for it to work. Let me play with the big bang theory for a moment.

 

The Big Bang Theory is a widely held belief about the origin of the universe because nearly all of the evidence points to it. Most people are familiar with the basics of it. Let me quote Secrets of Nature, The Birth of the Universe here. " Imagine all matter as one single mass, all light concentrated into one source...The universe as we understand it was born from a single initial point, began expanding, and slowly took shape." This point is refered to as a singlarity, and the region around it as a black hole. The theory is good, however the problems are in the details.

 

The Big Bang was started by the mother and father of all black holes, as it contained all of the mass and engery in the universe. Gee, it almost sounds like the defination of God I was taught as a child, omni-potent and omni present. Meaning unlimited power, and existing beyond time and space. All the engery in the universe was in this point, and as the universe did not exist yet, neither did time or space. In the begining was God. Note the theory does not state where this super massive singlarity came from.

 

Then for some unknown reason, the impossable happened and this singlarity exploded. Completly disreguarding the laws of science. For as everyone knows, nothing can escape the pull of a black hole, and this was the greatest black hole of all time and space. Gee, sounds like God said, Let there be light, and it was so. Right now that is as good an answer as you can get, cause science can not explain this point.

 

But now we come to the parts science can explain, sort of. As the universe expanded, quarks, protons, neutrinos, and electrons were formed during the first 3 minutes, later as temperatures fell the first atoms formed. no problem right? Wrong. If the expanding universe had continued unabatted, no matter could have formed, and the universe would be empty of all matter. Something had to hold back the expanding ball of energy, to allow the energy density to reach the point where matter would form. the timing and duration of this restraint on the expanding universe is critical. Yet it was accomplised with perfect timing to allow matter to form in the right proportions, to have the universe we know today. Science can not explain how the expanding universe was held in check breifly, only that it had to happen. Gee, sounds like God put the squeeze on creation, just for us.

 

The next problem with the creation of matter is this. When matter is formed in this manner, it will consist of equal parts matter and anti-matter. We have proved this much in the lab. By rights, this squeeze that created matter should have made equal parts of matter and anti-matter, which would have wiped each other out, still leaving a universe devoid of matter and life. As we can plainly see, this is not what happened. Gee, again it seems that we must seek the answer to this in religion rather than science. Maybe God put all that anti-matter into the first normal size blackholes, cool move. The flaws go on and on.

 

Even leading scientists are starting to have their doubts about this theory. Let me qoute Stephen Hawking from A Brief History of Time. Hawking argues that quantum mechanics shows us that the classical picture of a "well-defined spacetime arises as a limiting case of the quantum perspective."(23) Time is less fundamental than space and, as a consequence, spacetime cannot have a singular, initial boundary. There is no singularity, no initial boundary at all; the universe has no beginning! Even though unbounded, the universe is finite. Here is how Hawking sets forth his view:

(Quote)

“The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. One could say:

 

'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.(24)

 

Hawking thinks that the inflationary model of the universe cannot explain the present state of the universe. He is troubled by two questions which he does not think the traditional theory of the Big Bang can answer: 1) why is the universe so homogenous and isotropic on a large scale, whereas there are "local irregularities" such as galaxies and stars; 2) why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely?(25) The appeal to an initial singularity is, for Hawking, an admission of defeat: "If the laws of physics could break down at the beginning of the universe, why couldn't they break down anywhere?"(26) To admit a singularity is to deny a universal predictability to physics, and, hence ultimately, to reject the competency of science to understand the universe. He claims that the "no-boundary proposal can explain all the structure of the universe, including little inhomogeneities like ourselves."(27)

 

And from John Barrow, professor of astronomy at the University of Sussex in England. In The Origins of the Universe (1994), Barrow observes that the no-boundary condition of Hawking's quantum cosmology has become increasingly attractive because it "avoids the necessity for . . . a cataclysmic beginning." Barrow thinks that the traditional Big Bang picture, with its initial singularity of infinite density "is, strictly speaking, . . . creation out of absolutely nothing."(31)

 

The list goes on, the big bang is losing support, both amoung scientists and the common man.

 

I may delve into the flaws of the other mainstream theories at another time, and offer a new theory which supports the unbounded universe view mentioned by Stephen Hawking. However this post is much too long as it is, and my hands need a break from typing.