Is my understanding of the big bang theory correct?

Question

the big bang did not create everything, as in literal creation from nothingness. the universe has ALWAYS existed.

what the big band DID do, is create the world as we know it today. the big bang was not the only big bang, there have been many others before. the universe constantly explodes, compacts (because of the force of gravity) and re-explodes. the reason they say the universe is 'expanding" is because we are still in the later part of the explosion.

each explosion and compaction cycle takes a LONG time relative to our perception, but the latest 'big bang' that happened billions of years ago, is refered to as *the* big bang because its the only relevant one

but because of objective reality, and the multi-universe possibility, it will remain a theory forever, but regarded as a likely reality.

Is that about right? I would realy like christians who think they understand the theory like they are scientists or something to realize they are wrong.

wat i described was the first part of the b.b. theory, the big crunch theory as it turns out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

Answer 1

Right. Thats the big bang cycle theory. Christian guy, here. How did the cycle start? I've been answering a lot of your questions lately cause they are good.

The first half of this argument is especially true. The second half, about the cycle (or the big crunch), is a newer, add on to the Big Bang theory and is a little shaky. Especially cause the rate of expansion, for completely unknown reasons (you should read some recent articles on it cause I can't go into detail here), is INCREASING, despite LITERALLY ALL scientific models saying that shouldn't be happening.

Wiki isn't the best but follow this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

Pay attention to where it specifically talks about ruling out the "Big Crunch" in the last paragraph.

You'll see the problems this acceleration presents for much scientific thought. "Dark energy" is quite the mystery.

Again, science is real. It is wonderful. So is God. God is also the God of science, just like anything and everything else.

Okay, two days have gone by and I have done some research. Apparently the "Big Crunch" theory has basically been universally rejected by the scientific community.

Answer 2

A way off, I'm afraid.

Lessee - first there's the cyclic universe idea. Turns out that's not a goer. Measurements had shown for some time that the universe didn't have enough mass to recollapse, and instead appeared to be 'flat'- i.e. going to continue to spread out forever.

Then a few years back, some guys doing fine measurements on type 1a supernovae discovered that the universe is not only spreading, but its expansion is actually *accelerating*! Some unknown repulsive force is pushing everything apart. Maybe this is some remnant of the cosmic inflation epoch - who knows? The point is, there's no Big Crunch going to happen.

Now, yer Big Bang does in fact seem to have been the start of everything: matter, energy, space and time all arrived at once. So there is no 'before the Big bang'. There are various notions about what the Big bang actually WAS, but the issue of 'what caused it' is just not relevant. Contrary to certain schools of thought, you don't need a cause for every event. There are un-caused events taking place all around us right now, as virtual particles pop into existence, interact briefly with the real world, and then usually disappear again - though not at all inevitably.

On a less exotic scale, radioactive materials go pop and turn into their decay products - again with no cause. A particular uranium atom might sit there for microseconds or millennia before it decays, but nothing makes it happen. It's governed, like much in Quantum World, entirely by statistical probability.

At the instant of its first existence, the Big bang was a singularity - a dimensionless point of apparently infinite mass and energy density. Its homogeneity and simplicity at that instant makes it somewhat like a single subatomic particle, and perhaps it arrived via the same probabilistic process that creates virtual particles. For a such a thing to exist is staggering unlikely but how long do you have to wait for such an unlikely thing to happen, when there is no time?

Well, that instant after t0 is still a bit of a mystery, with some good ideas chasing it. The problem is that for the first 'piece' of time - a Planck unit or around 10e-43 seconds - all our current math breaks down, and we can't calculate anything about it.

Was God there? Nobody can say He wasn't. Seems unnecessary, though.

Anyway, after that incredibly short moment we arrive at t1, and our math starts working again. The temperatures and properties of the expanding ball of everything can be worked out.

Check out the link below to see the timeline of these events on a log scale.

Answer 3

A cyclic universe with a "Big Bang", and a "Big Crunch" was very much in the running against the infinite expansion and eventual "heat death" model until quite recently.

Measurements that suggest the further reaches of the detectable universe are *accelerating* has made a future re-collapse appear much less probable.

In which case we are not dealing with repeated cycles., but one expansion, and the universe getting (overall) colder and colder.

Two different takes on multi-universes: the "sea of foam" where other universes independent from ours could exist, each its own "bubble" about which we can know nothing.
and the perpendicular universes which asare suggested by model by which all quantum states occur, even though "we" only observe particular ones. This comes as an avoidance of the awkwardness of the Copenhagen interpretation, though it brings its own!

Answer 4

Actually Nick, you are unknowingly contradicting yourself when you say, "I'm not trying to say it's wrong, even though I am Catholic" because the first person to actually propose the Big Bang Theory was Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a Catholic Priest---not to mention that the Catholic Church is open to the possibility of the Big Bang Theory. Dear Nick, the Catholic Church also is open to the possibility of Evolution-----being Roman Catholic, I am also open to the possibility of the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. The Catholic Church actually has two Observatories---its headquarters are at the papal summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, Italy, outside Rome and the other, an independant research centre, is hosted by Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona, Tucson, USA. There seems to be a lot of Priests who are Astronomers who work there.

Answer 5

That theory has been set aside. It was known as the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory, Some like to add the rubber band effect that it would Bang and Crunch over and over.
But new findings show that the universe is one of Big Bang/Big Freeze. That the universe is proven now to be expanding at an ever increasing rate, and the average temperature cooling at an ever increasing rate. And that it will continue to expand forever, and forever approach an average temperature of absolute zero. Hence, the Big Freeze.
There are reasons to believe the universe came from nothingness (very complicated, relates to String Theory, M-Theory, and Supersymmetry). If all the negative energys and mass were added to all the positive energys and mass, the result would be ZERO -

Hopefully there will be a Unified Theory that will cover everything and explain everything in the near future. Right now there seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.
The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.
However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.
However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.

Answer 6

That is certainly one of the ideas. Though, one of the major questions is whether or not the universe will contract. There's really no reason to think it will. It's just as likely, as far as we can tell, that the universe will continue to expand until it can't sustain any heat.

If this is the case, then it does leave the question as to where the big bang came from, but you're absolutely correct when you say that it is not creation ex nihilo. Not that this is entirely impossible. We have seen so-called "virtual" particles pop into existence and these can either disappear again or they can become real.

Answer 7

The theory, as such, does not address any event beyond the expansion that created the universe that we know today. No information is (or probably ever will be) available about anything "before" then, and I use the quotes because the concept of before is undefined, there being neither time nor space before the bang. As for whether the present expansion will continue, or turn into a subsequent collapse, the jury is very much still out; the astronomers are busy scrutinizing their pictures to try to figure it out.

Answer 8

well there is only two choices. Either the big bang or God created the universe. And both choices require faith. Need to check things like carbon dating, its only valid back a few thousand years not millions. DNA gave us proof that evolution is not possible. Some choose to believe they came from nothing, others choose to believe they were created by God for a purpose in a world He created. Best tool is your own reserch. Good luck

Answer 9

Actually, infinity has never been demonstrated in physical matter.

If you say that the universe is infinite (always existing, no beginning) then the universe cannot be expanding. If the universe is expanding then the universe cannot be infinite, but it cannot be both. It is a contradiction in terms.

Scientists and astronomers have found evidence that the universe is finite.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4250

Answer 10

You're right that the Big Ban didn't creat everything. No, the universie hasn't always existd. There had 2 b a creatr. And that creatr is God. Evolution is definately not true cuz of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Mutations is also something that makes things become worse, not better. We need a creator cuz of the complexity of ourselvs and the world. Did a laptop or anything become that way w/ out som 1 2 design it??? No, someone had 2 design it