Big Bang philosophizing

[Sethomas]

Thursday I was speaking with a girl interest of a friend, and she asked why apes are still around if we evolved from them. I explained to her the details of speciation, and when I was done she asked, "If we know all this, why does anyone still believe in God?" I replied that evolution shows us how we were created, but it never begins to explain why. I then lectured her on the Big Bang, and explained that the perceived projection of the universe required in the first picoseconds after the bang a Matter to Anti-matter Ratio of about 500,000,000 to 500,000,001. That leaves raw chance with a 10^-7% margin of error to create the right amount of matter to serve as our home, of which >95% is useless in the form of dark matter and >>1% has solid ground. Considering the the Laws of Thermodynamics, the statistical probability against nucleic acids replicating themselves is mind-numbingly great. In perspective of numbers, I find the evidence of a guiding force behind everything remarkably great.

Much of my personal work has been to rectify Aquinas' notions of free will with biological science and such, and also to apply his work and that of Augustine to cosmological history. It's quite interesting to apply the idea of the prime mover to the Big Bang.

Here's a fun epiphany I had today: the Big Bang couldn't have possibly happened by itself. The Big Bang was a change in matter and energy, yet change is by definition only possible within the parameters of time. The Big Bang could never happen by itself because it lacked the fundamental time in which it could occur. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying it received an external "push".

This rumination was tonight's alternative to sleep.

[ranxer]

there's still no reason (that i percieve) to believe that the push was from some being that is just as mysterious as why the conditions of the big bang were present in the first place..

why couldnt the 'push' just be a circumstance such as why a wave breaks at a certain point.. toppling over when the depth vs height of wave reaches a certain ratio.

i don't know the answer but i won't resort to mysticism just because i don't know the answer

[Sir Douglas Chapwire]

I'm sorry, are you asking how the universe expanded so quickly, ie at superluminal speeds? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking...

[The_Rorschach]

" why couldnt the 'push' just be a circumstance such as why a wave breaks at a certain point.. toppling over when the depth vs height of wave reaches a certain ratio."

Essentiially because the equation which encompasses the creation of waves requires time. You'll find anything which transmutes one form of energy into another requires time. Time and enegery, time and pressure et cetera. What Seth is attempting to assert is that there wasn't enough time for the massive amounts of enegery to build for such an event as the big bang naturally because they would have dispersed just as rapidly. He's saying that the build up and release needed to be instantenous, which as the big bang was explained to me, is correct. More than correct, it is the only feasible way the big bang could have occoured.

[kahljorn]

All these ratios intrigue me, and not a few lines after you spoke of evolution. The "Raw Chance" may be small, but you seem to leave the concept of evolution for biological creations only

[AChimp]

I think that you're forgetting the fact that there's a good chance that time didn't operate the way we think it does prior to the Big Bang. I believe the current theories suppose that gravity didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, along with several other key components of the Universe, such as the strong nuclear force. Without gravity (which we already KNOW affects time) and these other things, all our current laws of physics are basically tossed out the window.

I think that it's a little cheap to automatically assume that just because we can't explain it at the moment with our current knowledge, that it should automatically be attributed to an "outside force/push."

It's the equivalent of cavemen attributing rainbows to the Sun God because they didn't understand how light refracts.

[Sethomas]

Time doesn't "operate" at all, it's simply a dimension. Before the Big Bang, time didn't pass because the dimension wasn't yet expanded. Even if the concept of time did exist while the universe was a Planck-sized nugget, you're forgetting the rules of General Relativity which dictate that the time around the pre-Bang universe would pass infinitely slowly. Hence cause and effect relationships could not possibly be established of their own accord. If you want to interject that this isn't so because gravatinos weren't formed until around t=10^-20, I should remind you that current theory presumes that quantum gravity existed before the time of the bang, whether you care to rationalize it via superstrings, supersymetry or whatever else. If you want to further argue that it's only assumption that quantum gravity would perhaps not have the same effects as that which we observe, I'd refer you to Julian Barbour's (sp?) work which suggests that time doesn't exist at the quantum level, making the point moot.

I think that it's a little cheap to automatically assume that just because we can't explain it at the moment with our current knowledge, that it should automatically be attributed to an "outside force/push."

I find it a little irrational to suggest that anything may happen without the elapsation of time.

It's the equivalent of cavemen attributing rainbows to the Sun God because they didn't understand how light refracts.

But we were there when God promised never to drown us all again, silly.

[The_Rorschach]

Planck-Length, for the non-quantums out there, is sort of like the DnD Magic Bag of Holding. It's a miniscule space which harbours almost limitless boundaries within it

[AChimp]

Bags of holding come in three sizes.

I think a Portable Hole is a better analogy.

[kahljorn]

"Time doesn't "operate" at all, it's simply a dimension. Before the Big Bang, time didn't pass because the dimension wasn't yet expanded"

That could be true except the "big bang" is still occuring.

[kahljorn]

"I'm sorry, are you asking how the universe expanded so quickly, ie at superluminal speeds? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking..."

OMG, another six days thing I didn't even notice that. WHOS TO SAY IT EXPANDED QUICKLY. The bible?

And about the no gravity thing, push expansion and pull gravity are like complimentary opposites, the toaist wonder. The gravity within the little bulb of love was attempting to hold it together, while the expansion was trying to push it apart. Could work the other way as well, though. Gravity trying to "Push" it apart while expansion was trying to "Pull" it together, like a reverse polarization of sorts by extreme circumstances not outlined here.

[Sethomas]

That could be true except the "big bang" is still occuring.

Duh. How does that contradict anything?

[kahljorn]

"Before the Big Bang, time didn't pass because the dimension wasn't yet expanded"

It is not after the big bang. Why is it not after the big bang? Because it has always been occuring. There is no before the big bang. Why is there no before the big bang? Because the big bang has always been occuring.

"universal constant"

[FS]

I'm not familiar with more than the basic workings of the Big Bang theory, but what if time expanded first and space followed directly after, in its wake?

[kahljorn]

I don't like that idea, personally, i dont like the whole, "Time was created I mean Unfolded thing". Too contradictory and open ended, still leaves the question of where it came from. Plus it's a universal CONSTANT so it's like.. you know. Plus time is a human concept. There is no time in space, only movement. What is to say there wasn't movement and such inside of the little bulb, and besides that; as the universal constant goes, there was an "Epic Battle" of sorts between the Push and Pull, which marks some form of growth and change, which marks "Time", movement and action. Therefore time couldn't have expanded because of it.

Basically, to underline my basic "Rebuttal". Before you were born, there was time. Just because you were not aware of it because you were still a little seed and egg-- before you began to expand as a fetus-- but there was still time. There was, and is, "Time" "movement" and "changes". The universe didn't start when you were born, only your perception of the universe did.
The only rebuttal to this is that the universe wasnt "one of many fetus' " but the only fetus around. He was too cool for school, so time could've flowed with it. Being the one of one, however, is quite a sad fallacy.

Think about mirrors.

[Sethomas]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"Before the Big Bang, time didn't pass because the dimension wasn't yet expanded"

It is not after the big bang. Why is it not after the big bang? Because it has always been occuring. There is no before the big bang. Why is there no before the big bang? Because the big bang has always been occuring.

"universal constant"

Fine, after the Big Bang began. I'd expect more from you than prissy word games.

[The_Rorschach]

Quiet Chimp! I'm still stuck thinking in 2nd Ed terms, damn you and your 3.5 lore.

[kahljorn]

"Fine, after the Big Bang began. I'd expect more from you than prissy word games."

There were no prissy word games, allow me to quote myself I left my statement thinking it was a good answer..

"It is not after the big bang. Why is it not after the big bang? Because it has always been occuring. There is no before the big bang. Why is there no before the big bang? Because the big bang has always been occuring."

There is no begining, nor is there an after a begining. Sorry, maybe I didnt make that clear when I said It is not after the big bang, and no before the big bang, and that it has always been occuring :P
That's just my opinion, and I'm obviously very stupid.