ForumsWEPRThe Primeval Atom

35 5527
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,842 posts
1,530

I've noticed across various threads that it is a common argument against the Big Bang that something would have had to create the compressed mass that decompressed to form the Universe. So, now I ask this question: If God can have no beginning and no end, then why can't that original compressed mass have no beginning too? Just curious.

  • 35 Replies
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,842 posts
1,530

@firefly: Then if the theories are combined, then the link betwee time and space would still be presetn. Therefore, time would still be all flubbed up, for lack of a better term.

orion732
offline
orion732
619 posts
135

If you think about it, there is a mountain of evidence for the primeval atom/hot big bang model. First, there is the CMB-Cosmic Microwave Background. This is the background microwave radiation that is visible throughout the universe. This shows that the universe was once the same density throughout, with very very miniscule variations in temperature, which allowed the galaxies and nebulae to form. Another piece of evidence is the fact that the universe is expanding at the same rate from no single point. Everything is getting further away from everything else at an ever increasing rate. Currently our rate of expansion is just enough to avoid recollapsing. This, again, is made possible from the Hot Big Bang model. If God had made the universe as it states in the bible, the universe would either be completely static, unchanging in dimensions, neither expanding nor collapsing, or it would be collapsing due to the gravity of all the planets and stars in it. We have seperated all of the known forces of the universe into 4 distinct (or seemingly distinct) forces-the electromagnetic force, gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. At some point in time, when matter density and energy density was much greater, all the forces were a single force. This can be understood through an analogy-all the forces are simply facets of a single force, each showing up at its own size and energy density. It's really amazing what reading Stephen Hawking can do for you. Anyways, being both a Catholic and a physicist (or at least one in the making), these beliefs are hard to reconcile, but I've found a union that fits me. I believe that God wrote the laws of physics, defining what the universe would look like when it expanded. Then he merely set everything up and watched it all happen. If we ever find a ToE (Theory of Everything), we will be able to predict how everything will look in the future. It will govern everything from movement of atoms, to what you will be wearing tomorrow. Of course, we would only be able to predict what would happen if we knew the position and velocities of every particle in the universe at any given point in time. Alas, this is impossible due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Moegreche
online
Moegreche
3,299 posts
16,400

To go back to this statement, I remember from the Hawking documentary, that he said most physicists see the Theory of Relativity as the theory of the very large and Quantum theory, as the theory of the very small. He went on to say that the key to understanding the universe is to combine the two theories.


You quote Hawking a lot, and I like his books. But he is far more popular in the public stream than the actual physics community. If you look at who's considered to be at the top in the experimental physics community, Hawking often isn't included, or is lower down on the top 10 list. This isn't to say he's not brilliant, and I really like how he explains things. But I remember when A Brief History of Time came out, he was an advocate for the universal singularity. A few years later, he retracted his theory.
Hawking has become infamous for saying some ridiculous things - like a ToE will be found in the next decade - which does not endear him with his colleagues.

I heard about the theory on a documentary focused on Stephen Hawking. The way the theory was presented definitely did not give the impression that it had been disregarded by the scientific community.

Often by the time these documentaries on the fringe of physics actually come out, the theories can be in a completely different light in the astrophysics community. Those making the documentaries also usually only focus on the interesting theories that can be explained to the public. The result of this is that these theories are portrayed in the documentary as the law of the land, when if fact only a handful of physicists might really believe the theory to be true.

The theory of relativity has been disregarded, so where does that leave us with the state of time at the beginning of the universe?

That's a great question. The physics community still consider time and space to be linked - in fact, this apparently helps explain why we have the force of gravity. So we can refer to the first few nanoseconds of the universe's existence and still make sense. So, time is there as long as space as there, as space is there as long as there's a universe in which to define it. Quantum mechanics apparently helps explain causation a bit better within the first few nanoseconds, but I can't even pretend I know how... :P
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,239 posts
460

I won't even try to pretend I'm particularly knowledgable in the field, in fact far from it. I'll admit the sum of my knowledge of the subject comes from that Hawking documentary mini-series. Oh the shame! But you're right, he certainly explains immensely complex concepts well to us mere mortals.

That's a great question. The physics community still consider time and space to be linked - in fact, this apparently helps explain why we have the force of gravity. So we can refer to the first few nanoseconds of the universe's existence and still make sense. So, time is there as long as space as there, as space is there as long as there's a universe in which to define it. Quantum mechanics apparently helps explain causation a bit better within the first few nanoseconds, but I can't even pretend I know how... :P


I see. Like I said before, Hawking defined Quantum theory as the theory of the very small, so I guess in the very beginnings of the universe, quantum theory would be applicable. But yea, unfortunately, unless a user comes along with a PHD in astro physics, this particular discussion has kind of hit a dead end, not that more discussion cannot be had.

I see
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,239 posts
460

Don't know where the 2nd, I see came from, but anywho.

One more query. Can someone explain to me, in layman's terms if possible, how time and space are linked. I've always thought of time merely as a unit of measurement, not an entity in itself. Or am I getting the wrong idea.

Thanks.

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,842 posts
1,530

Wow. @Moe and firefly: We're the only regular posters in this topic :O
----------
I'm not sure exactly why they're linked. But, it is possible to see such things in everyday life-why you feel as though you're moving slowly in a moving car or bus on the road, and also why if two twins of the same age will end up being different ages if one travfels in space for a while.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,239 posts
460

also why if two twins of the same age will end up being different ages if one travfels in space for a while.


That would be freaking weird. So does travelling faster age you? Or is that only applicable in space.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,842 posts
1,530

That would be freaking weird. So does travelling faster age you? Or is that only applicable in space.


Actually, the space travel makes you age less. Weird, isn't it? There was a regular twin and an astronaut twin, and after a lot of space travel, the astronaut twin was some days younger in physical age then the regular twin.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,239 posts
460

the astronaut twin was some days younger in physical age then the regular twin.


2 question, unless the purpose of putting the twin into space was to compare their age with the control twin, how can you measure someone's age in days?

2nd Q. Could one achieve immortality through this method in the space craft currently available?
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,842 posts
1,530

Could one achieve immortality through this method in the space craft currently available?

I'm not sure about that one. I highly doubt that though, because your cells will continue to divide, and you'll still eventually die. I'm not sure though.
-----------
It is theorized that if you put some people on a ship and send it away from Earth at the speed of light and give them a counter and tell them to come back when it hits a certain amount of years, then they will come back with only having aged a few years to a world a few decades in the future.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,239 posts
460

It is theorized that if you put some people on a ship and send it away from Earth at the speed of light and give them a counter and tell them to come back when it hits a certain amount of years, then they will come back with only having aged a few years to a world a few decades in the future.


That would be pretty awesome, but very boring.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,842 posts
1,530

That would be pretty awesome, but very boring.

Also, it would feel in the ship that less years have passed. Crazy, innit?
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,842 posts
1,530

*In fact, everything travelling at the speed of light would age less.

orion732
offline
orion732
619 posts
135

At the speed of light? They would still age. Travelling slower than the speed of light, we age. Travelling faster, could go back in time, but we would still age. Travelling at the speed of light, we would age. Remember, there is no absolute time, only time felt by the observer.

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,842 posts
1,530

@orion: I said that they would still age, just slower. . .they would be traveling through space fast enough that time can't always keep up, and such travel bends space and therefore time. . . .

Showing 16-30 of 35