Why do you believe in the Big Bang?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
but rather, much different standards for evidence.

You could never have stated this more perfectly.

It's almost as if God inspired you! Do you have an hebraic version of your post lying on a parchment?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ask yourself these two questions. First, what forms of evidence are rendered admissible in the realm of science? Secondly, what forms of evidence are rendered admissible in the realm of theology? The answers to these questions are very very different. This

Thus sayeth someone who urgently needs to watch the 'South Park' episode dealing with the revealed 'truth' of Mormonism.

'Twas very funny indeed.

Oh, I know the Big Bang is the truth because Stephen Hawking inscribed it on tablets of porphyry and sent it to me in a dream.

Also, Einstein came down in a blazing Citroen Dyane three days' later and confirmed it, and he had with him a host of well known people in white coats with test tubes and clipboards, so it must be true.

I will reveal all after spending twenty days in the Simpson Desert.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


These could all very well be explained by an oscillating universe. Most of these in fact are not consequences of the Big Bang at all - they are consequences of an expanding, cooling universe.

Of course there is the `big problem' that recent observations now show that distant galaxies are accelerating away from us

Yep I read that as well. Makes previous theories pretty much stand on their head.

[Kuciwalker]

Ask yourself these two questions. First, what forms of evidence are rendered admissible in the realm of science? Secondly, what forms of evidence are rendered admissible in the realm of theology? The answers to these questions are very very different. This is why most religious folks are less 'open' not because of closed mindedness, but rather, much different standards for evidence.

Science requires empirical evidence, whereas theology requires NO evidence, only "faith".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Star Trek even had him playing chess with Einstein -- pleeeease!

I dunno, he did come up with some interesting bits, such as the Quantum Evapouration of Black Holes.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This is why most religious folks are less 'open' not because of closed mindedness, but rather, much different standards for evidence.

Indeed. The standard becomes whether the evidence is supportive of dogma, not whether it can be verified.

[Dis]

I don't. read the Januarary Discvoer magazine article. It discusses a collision with a parallel universe as the cause of the "big bang". And this cycle can repeat itself.

[Urban Ranger]

Are you talking about the collision of two higher dimensional "membranes," also known as M theory IIRC?

[Dis]

yes I've heard them referred to as membranes as well.

[Solly]

Vesayen: "but everything we know about the universe points to cause = effect"

The Andy-Man: "I see, maybe there was no cause, and consequently no effect and we just percieve things wrong"

This comes to the crux of it. Although we think cause and effect is the way this universe runs, it's quite possible it's more complex. Science tends to ignore that which it can't fathom, and behaviour which appears not to have a cause has previously been ignored. Perhaps..

I personally don't believe in absolute causality. I think we live in a highly causal universe, but not a deterministic one.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Stuie
I don't "believe" in it (that is, I do not blindly accept that it is the truth), but I do accept it as the most plausible theory available for a start point for our universe as we know it.

this

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
It seems to me that a huge proportion of our society and indeed people who post here have an unswerving belief in the Big Bang.

I am no creationist (in the fundie sense), but I certainly don't see the evidence for the Big Bang that a lot of you seem to see, so could you please explain to me why you believe in it?

I am genuinely curious because the same people also seem to put a lot of store in scepticism of religion and discredit the idea of faith. So they presumably don't just 'have faith' that it happened, or indeed just have faith in the discovery channel, but havesolid scientific grounds for their stance.

Have you solved all the problems associated with Big Bang models too? Do you even know what they are?

I don't know about the questioning the Big Bang I think there is more than enough 'hard' evidence that it is the source of all observable effects in existance. i.e Whether the universe is oscillating or not is irrelevent as the two scenarios are indistinguishable as all information is lost from one cycle to the next.
I'd rather question specifics about the Big Bang, I don't like the bit about rampant inflation explaining isotropy for example. It just doesn't feel right to me. And I want a better excuse for Omega equalling exactly 1, we don't know that it does but I think it will turn out to be so - to be flat is aesthetic in my mind, but I want an equally aesthetic pre-cursor to explain it.

[Solly]

What is Omega?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Park Avenue ie, how it treats consciousness as an irrelevant phenomenon

OH NO IT DOESN'T!

(come on, it's like panto!)

[Solly]

[MikeH]

You said science treats conciousness as an irrelevant phenomenon. There's loads of research into stuff like that.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker

Science requires empirical evidence, whereas theology requires NO evidence, only "faith".

Not exactly. There is still the formal, metaphysical evidence left for God.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
What is Omega?

Simply, a measure of the curvature of space.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I don't know about the questioning the Big Bang I think there is more than enough 'hard' evidence that it is the source of all observable effects in existance. i.e Whether the universe is oscillating or not is irrelevent as the two scenarios are indistinguishable as all information is lost from one cycle to the next.

That would depend on the size at the smallest point of the oscillation - as long as it is slightly below the Planck scale, it would leave remnants. The Big Bang itself is not the progenator of all these effects - the expansion of the universe is. That is quite different!

I'd rather question specifics about the Big Bang, I don't like the bit about rampant inflation explaining isotropy for example. It just doesn't feel right to me.

I agree - I dislike inflation too.

And I want a better excuse for Omega equalling exactly 1, we don't know that it does but I think it will turn out to be so - to be flat is aesthetic in my mind, but I want an equally aesthetic pre-cursor to explain it.

This is a good example of 'fiath' in science. There is really no evidence or reason for having Omega=1, it is just 'nice'. (In fact there is evidence for it not being 1.) But most cosmologists believe it to be so., and then speculate at length about what the 'dark matter' may be. (I do too.)

[Whaleboy]

I don't believe in it, and there are other explanations that account for the evidence, but the BB seems to be the most plausible. If a better comes along, I will accept but I have no unswerving belief in it. The only religious aspect of cosmology is the sheer beauty, nothing more.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


That would depend on the size at the smallest point of the oscillation - as long as it is slightly below the Planck scale, it would leave remnants. The Big Bang itself is not the progenator of all these effects - the expansion of the universe is. That is quite different!

What is the difference? Does the Big Bang theory mean the theory of the universe's conception in your mind? To me the 'Big Bang' refers to the concept of the universe expanding from a miniscule point, not to the progeny of the universe. You can believe in a Big Bang and in an cyclic universe, or at least in my mind you can.

This is a good example of 'fiath' in science. There is really no evidence or reason for having Omega=1, it is just 'nice'. (In fact there is evidence for it not being 1.) But most cosmologists believe it to be so., and then speculate at length about what the 'dark matter' may be. (I do too.)

Cosmology has so many competing theories* that when I look at them the only way I can decide on the one I believe is by the feel of them**. I admit its a type of faith, but if evidence is presented to show misplaced faith then I would be happy to choose a new theory.

* I say competing theories, they're more a plethora of possible boundary conditions and starting variables based on a single theory. If the universe is oscillatory they could conceivably all be true at one stage or another.

** I've always liked physics over mathematics because it has always been intuative to me. I have a philosophical question that should probably have its own thread - what makes and a theory aesthetic, and why are accredited theories aesthetic?.

[debeest]

I see no evidence whatsoever for the general notion that the universe was created or is directed by some sort of conscious entity. Semi-comprehensible tracts handed down to us from people who were hopelessly ignorant (through no fault of their own) don't count as evidence to me. Religions that posit a godding force are a complete mystery to me because they consist of belief without any evidence.

Scientific evidence generally has the virtue of being observable, measurable, and consistently repeatable. It exists in the physical world outside of people's minds, so that even those who expect not to see it must acknowledge it. People may differ in interpreting it, but a scientific viewpoint allows the evidence itself to be accepted even by those who differ as to interpretation.

I feel certain that you will want to argue that my description of scientific evidence applies fairly well to theological "evidence" as well. I may as well state my disagreement now.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by debeest
I feel certain that you will want to argue that my description of scientific evidence applies fairly well to theological "evidence" as well. I may as well state my disagreement now.

Not at all. Indeed, since you are so happy with your 'scientific understanding' of the Big Bang, perhaps you would like to explain it to me. I would be very interested.

[Dauphin]

RJ, you in Edinburgh for the foreseeable future or just temporarily?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
RJ, you in Edinburgh for the foreseeable future or just temporarily?

That depends. I only have a 'temporary' 6-year contract here, but it is special funding from the government (basically so I don't have to teach, and can just focus on research) so I am allowed to take it wherever I like (in the UK). If a good university offers me a good deal (like a permanent contract to start when my gov funding stops, with reduced teaching duties) I would go. I had wondered about moving back to Oxford....

[niDe]

yes. it sounds better than other terms.
like god.
and "what happens when like HEAPS of dust spins REALLY REALLY fast like and gets all hot (so take off all your clothes) and then like explodes into planets and all that other space stuff"

ah huh says the man with the green hat.

[Skanky Burns]

Lay off the green hats, niDe. They will be the death of you.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by debeest


I don't think that most physicists would agree on that last point, though I'm sure many would. But I think most physicists would agree that Steven Hawking is among the few most important modern physicists, and not because the media focus on him more than they should. He may not be a supergenius, but he's added more to modern physical thinking than most.

well, I have not ran into one of his theories in my classes

I have, however, ran into theories developed\partially developed by people who are here in Maryland

like Greenberg down the hall

JM

[GePap]

Last I had read, matter and antimatter were NOT created in equal amounts, but instead matter was created in slightly large amounts, and what we see is the matter that was left after most matter and anti-matter annahilated themselves.

[Jon Miller]

that is the theory they are looking for

a few of dudes down the hall are doing research right now trying to come up with a working theory

JM