How credible is the Big Bang?

Question

I understand that most Evolutionists believe in the Big Bang Theory. I have studied it myself and it's a fascinating idea, but I have two doubts about it::

1) If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then what would there have been to go "bang"? And how did it get there in the first place?

2) If energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then what made the supposed "stuff" go "bang"? How did the energy get there?

Please try to be as detailed as possible as I am genuinely looking for an answer, and not trying to back you into a corner.

Answer 1

First of all, if you are interested in this, I highly suggest reading Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe." There are several theories about how the big bang occurred, but one important thing to keep in mind is that time itself did not exist when this universe did not exist, so there is no point in talking about "before" the Big Bang, or the cause of the Big Bang, because causation implies the passage of time. The two main ones are as follows: 1) The Big Bang was the explosion of a supermassive black hole, creating a pocket which is now our universe. 2) The Big Bang is a smaller part of a larger universe unfurling itself suddenly because of changes in the larger-dimensional universe we cannot perceive.

Hope this gets you started.

Answer 2

The big bang is highly credible because it is supported by observational evidence. Its origins are in explaining the 4K background radiation in the universe, but it is also supported by universal expansion and other observations.

Conservation of mass energy is not as straight forward as you make out. For instance, if I have a 1 kg mass on a train travelling at 10 m/s then its energy is 1/2mv^2 = 50 J right? But on the train v = 0 so its energy is zero. Clearly you have to be careful how you add up energy for a whole universe. Indeed it is possible that the universe has no net energy - all of the mass being balance by the negative gravitational energy.

Answer 3

The Big Bang is a theory which is among the more accepted theories but it is a work in progress with many unknowns and some data can be interpreted in more than one way. The theory as a whole is not invalidated by different interpretations of the same data but revisions are made to it from time to time.

The Big Bang is NOT a theory on the beginning of the universe. Many think of it that way but it'd be more appropriate to think of it as an event in which this current phase of the universe came into being. We have absolutely no way of knowing what existed, if anything, before that, but it's generally held that it was not three dimentional space...that is one of the things that came into being a a result of the big bang.

Theories which deal with might have existed before are dealt with in the realm of cosmology, and are based almost purely on mathematical speculation and some imagination. One theory is membrane theory which holds that two or more membranes...whatever those are, existed in another dimention and eventually collided producing the Big Bang, forming what we know as three dimentional space and matter. Matter is hypothesized to be a result of the overlapping of the two or more membranes. There is no way for this to be proved or disproved really outside of math and it's just a thought to ponder for now.

Back to the big bang though. The theory of the big bang holds that space expanded out from a singularity. This is not an expansion of something INTO space, as we are used to thinking of it, it's an expansion of space itself. This expansion happened not at any particular place, but everywhere, and space is still expanding..in fact at an accelerating rate...it is stretching without stretching your or I.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed here, but the universe plays tricks. For example, a particle of anti-matter popping up, which MUST have an accompanying particle of matter even if it's very far away, is not considered a violation of the law because the universe see's the "sum" of the two particles...which cancel out. This is like looking at the net charge in a proton electron pair..it's zero.

I cannot tell you where everything came from in any absolute or any great detail. No one can and there's a good chance that us humble humans wouldn't understand it if some higher life form tried to explain it to us. Believing in the big bang does not negate God. If you wish to believe in a diety such as God there is no reason to think this conflicts with the big bang or evolutioin. It doesn't.

Answer 4

The sorts of laws of physics yet to be discovered that would *compel* the eruption of an entire universe are indeed a mystery, but your objections regarding violations of known physical law are based on a false premise. Matter is a form of energy, as measured by its mass times c^2, and can be freely converted back and forth to and from other forms such as kinetic and gravitational potential. Total energy of the universe is indeed conserved the Big Bang and is, most likely, identically zero. You see, gravitational potential energy is *negative*, and if you add it up over the universe, it is enough to cancel out the other forms exactly, the thinking goes. This, however, only explains why the BB does not violate the known laws of physics; it does not explain what, if anything, compelled it. The question remains, as Hawking put it, "why is there anything at all"?

Answer 5

the large bang has no longer something in any respect to do with evolution different than interior the minds of creationists. One is an argument in physics and cosmology, the different is biology. it relatively is real that many that settle for evolution additionally settle for the large bang ( or, as Calvin known because it, "the horrendouse area kablooie" ), however the only connection is they are the two logical, if incomplete explantions for stated phenomena. technological expertise can in basic terms describe that it is observable ( the two at as quickly as or with the aid of it is effects) consequently our ability to posit recommendations stops on the large bang. Your 2 questions are good and significant, yet they have no longer something to do with technological expertise and there is no declare to their answer. the undeniable fact that there is a few thing quite than no longer something is probable the perfect argument there is for some style of god in spite of the undeniable fact that it does not refute the large bang, It in basic terms exhibits that when he created a universe the large band became his tecnique. Evolution on the otherhand, being a plenty newer occurance and lots extra easilly studied because of the fact it relatively is ongoing, enjoys such overwhelming info that it relatively is on the brink of irrefutable with the aid of everybody who's objective. Creattionists want to pretend that the large band and evolution have some style of connection interior the desire that the doubts relating to the large bang will rub off on evolution. Neither of those is mandatory. If there's a god who created the universe, his stunning act of creation became interior the large bang and he led to existence to devolop following an evolutionary technique. Neither of those is inconsistant with the existance of god different than if he's the constrained subject the fundies make him out to be.

Answer 6

see i belive Bigbang theory... also around us lot of unbelivable thing are there.. so conservation energy may be wrong in some cases.... so energy may be readily available thing...