DEMYSTIFIED / SCIENCE - - Was the Big Bang Actually an Explosion

Da Vinci

Elder Lister

WRITTEN BY
Kate Lohnes
Magellanic-Cloud-star-formation-Satellite-galaxy-nebulae.jpg

Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) new star formation. Satellite galaxy of the Milky Way. This galaxy is scattered with glowing nebulae, the most noticeable sign that new stars are being born.

The big-bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaître in 1927 sans its contemporary name, which was coined in the 1950s. The common name has allowed for the beginnings of our universe to be too often depicted as a massive explosion similar to that of an epic supernova. But was our universe really formed in a cosmic fireworks show? Or was something else at work?

The “big bang” wasn’t a “bang” at all, at least not in the common definition. It didn’t explode in a scene of shrapnel and fire, and there was definitely no mushroom cloud. The big-bang theory of the universe is derived from Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity and the idea that the universe expanded from a miniscule dense collection of energy called a singularity. There was no bang, just a vast expansion of extremely condensed material.

So why describe the theory with such a misleading name? To mock it, perhaps. Sir Fred Hoyle snidely referred to the theory as the “big bang” with the intention of reducing it to absurdity, and it stuck. Hoyle believed, contrary to the big-bang theory, that the universe itself did not have a beginning, rather the components inside it did. This is called the steady-state theory, which has decreased in popularity in light of the common acceptance of the big-bang theory.

If the universe didn’t explode into existence, where did it all come from? According to the theory, the universe—this includes all space, time, energy, etc.—was condensed into an extremely hot zero-volume entity of infinite density called a singularity. In physics density is quantified by dividing mass by volume, meaning that the equation to determine the density of a singularity divides by zero. If that doesn’t hurt your brain, this will: Because all of space and time existed within the singularity, the singularity itself did not exist within space or time.

The universe as we know it (or barely know it) is the result of this singularity expanding and cooling. Since the singularity itself was not in a location on the planes of space or time, there is no center of the universe; everything is expanding from everything else at an equal rate. As for the origins of the singularity, or even what existed before it, scientists are just as befuddled as everyone else.
 

slevyn

New Lister
its all BS... we can never know how the universe formed from within. it is like a monkey trying to understand a zoo without ever leaving its enclosure
 

Burner

Elder Lister
its all BS... we can never know how the universe formed from within. it is like a monkey trying to understand a zoo without ever leaving its enclosure
Its not BS. If the monkey can look around and sees walls and cages and other animals around in those cages it can start to form an idea of what and where they are. Soon enough it will recognize patterns of certain people coming in through particular doors or directions and doing certian things.
The analogy here changes because the monkey in this case now builds tools to start observations of its surroundings and builds a better picture of its "enclosure".

The current evidence for the big bang leads to the premise that things in the cosmos as we view it started from a singularity. Its not conclusive but its the best explanation given the evidence obtained.
 

slevyn

New Lister
Its not BS. If the monkey can look around and sees walls and cages and other animals around in those cages it can start to form an idea of what and where they are. Soon enough it will recognize patterns of certain people coming in through particular doors or directions and doing certian things.
The analogy here changes because the monkey in this case now builds tools to start observations of its surroundings and builds a better picture of its "enclosure".

The current evidence for the big bang leads to the premise that things in the cosmos as we view it started from a singularity. Its not conclusive but its the best explanation given the evidence obtained.
I'm questioning its ability to understand the purpose and design of its environment...
 

Burner

Elder Lister
I'm questioning its ability to understand the purpose and design of its environment...
You first have to show that the environment (read universe) is designed and once you've done that, show that it has purpose.
 

slevyn

New Lister
And with a perception like this, what progress do you think we can attain?
just so you know... all this is within the realm of theoretical physics, meaning there is no given and the information is no smarter than what a toddler can canjure..
 

Budspencer

Elder Lister
its all BS... we can never know how the universe formed from within. it is like a monkey trying to understand a zoo without ever leaving its enclosure
On some levels I agree with you. The more we observe the outer space and beyond the more we discover. If Kepler woke up today, he'd be amazed at the discoveries so far. There are things we aren't aware of the infinite universe the same way a cow has no idea of what Spotify is. But a human is a thinker and projection is a tool in science. With time we'll discover. Imagine someone worked out math and realized that he/she must hit 11.2km/s to free oneself from gravitational influence. Still, Earth is flat.
 

Ngimanene na Muchere

Elder Lister
Volcanos, floods, supernovae, thunderstorms, the different directions and different speeds at which galaxies are moving from each other... Etc.
And that's a snapshot of time, over time it falls into a very orderly sequence. The arrow of time dictates this. From a violent birth to death of the cosmos.
 
Top