The big bang makes no sense?
回答 (49)
2016-03-09 8:41 pm
If the Big Bang makes no sense... Then, what does?
2016-03-09 9:02 pm
Do you believe god created the universe? If so, then how was god created? It makes no sense. How can god be created from nothing?
A lot of people say that this so called god created the universe. They also said that rain, thunder, and lightning during a thunderstorm was the action(s) of god or some other gods. Once we found out why thunder, lightning and rain really occurred, the whole idea that god was responsible went out the window.
When and if we find the answer as to how the universe was created, the whole idea that god created the universe will also go out the window.
A lot of people say that this so called god created the universe. They also said that rain, thunder, and lightning during a thunderstorm was the action(s) of god or some other gods. Once we found out why thunder, lightning and rain really occurred, the whole idea that god was responsible went out the window.
When and if we find the answer as to how the universe was created, the whole idea that god created the universe will also go out the window.
2016-03-09 8:39 pm
As compared to what? It makes more sense than anything else and it matches the physical realities as we know them.
2016-03-09 8:41 pm
We await your better explanation of the status quo.
2016-03-11 6:41 pm
Depends what YOU think the words "Big Bang" mean.
The theory that goes by that [awful] nickname, does not describe the origin of the universe. It merely describes the relationship betweeen the expansion of space and the energy content of the universe:
Same amount of energy + more space to spread it out = the energy density goes down with time.
The "fun" part is in the description of what happens as the energy density passes certain critical values; just like you could explain what happens to water as it cools below the critical temperature of 0 C (it becomes solid), without having to explain where the water came from.
It is when we use the theory backwards that we hit a wall: there comes a time (13.8 billion years ago) when the energy density would have been so high (but NOT infinite) that we no longer understand how things work.
Worst, we don't even understand how time flows at that level of density. This makes it impossible (so far) to use the word "before" at that moment - called the Planck Time.
What we DO know about the Planck Time:
-- the initial energy already existed (the theory simply uses the fact that there is energy in the universe);
-- space was already expanding (the theory simply uses the observation that space expands);
-- the density was NOT infinite (no singularity in the theory);
-- matter did not yet exist (it comes later, and the theory DOES explain how).
The original idea (and mathematical model) for the theory came from a priest (Father Lemaitre). It suggested that the universe had a "beginning", thus hinting at a possible creation.
Fred Hoyle (atheist and famous astrophysicist) did not like this idea at all. He is the one who came up with the awful nickname "Big Bang". Fred had his own theory called Steady State, that called for an eternal universe (with expansion of space):
eternal universe = no creation = no creator.
Like you, Fred thought that Big Bang did not make sense.
---
The Big Bang theory does NOT claim to explain the origin of the universe.
It does NOT claim the universe came from nothing (the theory is simply silent about what the universe "came from" -- Father Lemaitre assumed it simply "came from God")
It does NOT talk of an explosion (the "explosion" was part of a description back in 1927, but by the time the theory was formulated, in 1948, it had been removed -- Fred's nickname "Big Bang" came in 1949, to remind people of the priest's original description of an explosion, back in 1927).
---
Therefore, you are "correct":
IF people claim that the Big Bang theory explains the beginning of the universe, then THAT makes no sense.
But the theory itself (insofar as it is used to describe the behaviour of the universe over the last 13.8 billion years) still makes a lot of sense.
100% sense? Maybe not. There are still a few annoyances.
The theory that goes by that [awful] nickname, does not describe the origin of the universe. It merely describes the relationship betweeen the expansion of space and the energy content of the universe:
Same amount of energy + more space to spread it out = the energy density goes down with time.
The "fun" part is in the description of what happens as the energy density passes certain critical values; just like you could explain what happens to water as it cools below the critical temperature of 0 C (it becomes solid), without having to explain where the water came from.
It is when we use the theory backwards that we hit a wall: there comes a time (13.8 billion years ago) when the energy density would have been so high (but NOT infinite) that we no longer understand how things work.
Worst, we don't even understand how time flows at that level of density. This makes it impossible (so far) to use the word "before" at that moment - called the Planck Time.
What we DO know about the Planck Time:
-- the initial energy already existed (the theory simply uses the fact that there is energy in the universe);
-- space was already expanding (the theory simply uses the observation that space expands);
-- the density was NOT infinite (no singularity in the theory);
-- matter did not yet exist (it comes later, and the theory DOES explain how).
The original idea (and mathematical model) for the theory came from a priest (Father Lemaitre). It suggested that the universe had a "beginning", thus hinting at a possible creation.
Fred Hoyle (atheist and famous astrophysicist) did not like this idea at all. He is the one who came up with the awful nickname "Big Bang". Fred had his own theory called Steady State, that called for an eternal universe (with expansion of space):
eternal universe = no creation = no creator.
Like you, Fred thought that Big Bang did not make sense.
---
The Big Bang theory does NOT claim to explain the origin of the universe.
It does NOT claim the universe came from nothing (the theory is simply silent about what the universe "came from" -- Father Lemaitre assumed it simply "came from God")
It does NOT talk of an explosion (the "explosion" was part of a description back in 1927, but by the time the theory was formulated, in 1948, it had been removed -- Fred's nickname "Big Bang" came in 1949, to remind people of the priest's original description of an explosion, back in 1927).
---
Therefore, you are "correct":
IF people claim that the Big Bang theory explains the beginning of the universe, then THAT makes no sense.
But the theory itself (insofar as it is used to describe the behaviour of the universe over the last 13.8 billion years) still makes a lot of sense.
100% sense? Maybe not. There are still a few annoyances.
2016-03-09 9:18 pm
There seems to be a lot of this type of question lately. It is a very controversial question, mostly because nobody really knows the answer for certain.
Philosophically, there is a theory that something came from the no-thing.
By the way, just because there is evidence for one particular scientific theory or another does not disprove the existence of God. Neither does is prove it. That is one reason for faith. The same philosophy can be said for particular scientific theories. Many people believe in particular scientific theories, partially because they have seen evidence for other scientific theories that have proof. However, there are a number of scientifif theories that do not have proof. People continue to try to prove them because they have faith - in science. That is not to say they do or do not have faith in God or any other belief.
If you want to know more about The Big Bang, then you should keep reading books on science and make your decisions for yourself.
Philosophically, there is a theory that something came from the no-thing.
By the way, just because there is evidence for one particular scientific theory or another does not disprove the existence of God. Neither does is prove it. That is one reason for faith. The same philosophy can be said for particular scientific theories. Many people believe in particular scientific theories, partially because they have seen evidence for other scientific theories that have proof. However, there are a number of scientifif theories that do not have proof. People continue to try to prove them because they have faith - in science. That is not to say they do or do not have faith in God or any other belief.
If you want to know more about The Big Bang, then you should keep reading books on science and make your decisions for yourself.
2016-03-10 1:44 am
If I asked what happened to a character before chapter one in a book, would that render the book or the question senseless
2016-03-09 8:56 pm
What does make sense? Religion? A man in the sky? Bet.
參考: common knowledge...
2016-03-09 8:44 pm
In what way does it '... make no sense.'?
2016-03-09 8:38 pm
dancing unicorns
Next question?
Next question?
2016-03-09 8:38 pm
A singularity. Next question?
2016-03-11 1:04 am
There seems to be a lot of this type of question lately. It is a very controversial question, mostly because nobody really knows the answer for certain.
Philosophically, there is a theory that something came from the no-thing.
By the way, just because there is evidence for one particular scientific theory or another does not disprove the existence of God. Neither does is prove it. That is one reason for faith. The same philosophy can be said for particular scientific theories. Many people believe in particular scientific theories, partially because they have seen evidence for other scientific theories that have proof. However, there are a number of scientifif theories that do not have proof. People continue to try to prove them because they have faith - in science. That is not to say they do or do not have faith in God or any other belief.
If you want to know more about The Big Bang, then you should keep reading books on science and make your decisions for yourself.
Philosophically, there is a theory that something came from the no-thing.
By the way, just because there is evidence for one particular scientific theory or another does not disprove the existence of God. Neither does is prove it. That is one reason for faith. The same philosophy can be said for particular scientific theories. Many people believe in particular scientific theories, partially because they have seen evidence for other scientific theories that have proof. However, there are a number of scientifif theories that do not have proof. People continue to try to prove them because they have faith - in science. That is not to say they do or do not have faith in God or any other belief.
If you want to know more about The Big Bang, then you should keep reading books on science and make your decisions for yourself.
2016-03-16 11:45 am
2016-03-11 10:47 am
The big bang is just a theory which not yet disproved ya it is right to say that it dose not make any sense as it dose not seems to be sense able that our universe is created from a thing that is created from nothing.
2016-03-11 4:33 am
The universe is an endless cycle. Before our universe, another existed
2016-03-10 7:37 pm
Neither do Black Holes.
But it doesn't stop us trying to learn by looking back in history by looking farther out.
It is our Destiny.
But it doesn't stop us trying to learn by looking back in history by looking farther out.
It is our Destiny.
2016-03-10 4:57 pm
Ignorant cretins like you don't either, but they are a fact.....
2016-03-10 2:30 pm
'What was before the big bang?'
A singularity.
A singularity.
2016-03-10 5:22 am
WHO SO --There should be truth available AND there is in an the amazing formula that goes back in time some 2500 years ago-- ("E=mc2" )
NOTE THE POWERFUL BIBLICAL TEXT & EQUATION ALONG WITH COMMENTARY:
(Isaiah 40:26) “26
“Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his VAST DYNAMIC ENERGY ( my caps ) and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.”(planets, stars, galaxies, super nova, known universe etc.)
*** ct chap. 6 pp. 88-90 An Ancient Creation Record—Can You Trust It?
In the 18th century, the scientist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier studied the weight of matter. He noticed that after a chemical reaction, the weight of the product equaled the combined weight of the original ingredients. For example, if paper is burned in oxygen, the resulting ash and gases weigh the same as the original paper and oxygen. Lavoisier proposed a law—‘conservation of mass, or matter.’ In 1910, The Encyclopædia Britannica explained: “Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.” That seemed reasonable, at least back then.
--However, the explosion of an atom bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945 publicly exposed a flaw in Lavoisier’s law. During such an explosion of a supercritical mass of uranium, different types of matter form, but their combined mass is less than that of the original uranium. Why the loss? It is because some of the mass of the uranium is converted into an awesome flash of energy.
--Another problem with Lavoisier’s law on the conservation of matter arose in 1952 with the detonation of a thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb). In that explosion, hydrogen atoms combined to form helium. The mass of the resulting helium, though, was less than that of the original hydrogen. A portion of the mass of the hydrogen was converted into explosive energy, an explosion far more devastating than the bomb released over Hiroshima.
As these explosions proved, a small amount of matter represents an enormous quantity of energy. This link between matter and energy explains the power of the sun, which keeps us alive and well. What is the link? Well, some 40 years earlier, in 1905, Einstein had predicted a relationship between matter and energy.
--Many know of his equation E=mc2. Once Einstein formulated that relationship, other scientists could explain how the sun has kept shining for billions of years. Within the sun, there are continuous thermonuclear reactions. In this way, every second, the sun converts about 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium. This means that some 4 million tons of matter are transformed into solar energy, a fraction of which reaches earth and sustains life.
--Significantly, the reverse process is also possible. “Energy changes into matter when subatomic particles collide at high speeds and create new, heavier particles,” explains The World Book Encyclopedia. Scientists accomplish this on a limited scale using huge machines called particle accelerators, in which subatomic particles collide at fantastic speeds, creating matter. “We’re repeating one of the miracles of the universe—transforming energy into matter,” explains Nobel laureate physicist Dr. Carlo Rubbia"
Much more available.......
NOTE THE POWERFUL BIBLICAL TEXT & EQUATION ALONG WITH COMMENTARY:
(Isaiah 40:26) “26
“Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his VAST DYNAMIC ENERGY ( my caps ) and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.”(planets, stars, galaxies, super nova, known universe etc.)
*** ct chap. 6 pp. 88-90 An Ancient Creation Record—Can You Trust It?
In the 18th century, the scientist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier studied the weight of matter. He noticed that after a chemical reaction, the weight of the product equaled the combined weight of the original ingredients. For example, if paper is burned in oxygen, the resulting ash and gases weigh the same as the original paper and oxygen. Lavoisier proposed a law—‘conservation of mass, or matter.’ In 1910, The Encyclopædia Britannica explained: “Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.” That seemed reasonable, at least back then.
--However, the explosion of an atom bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945 publicly exposed a flaw in Lavoisier’s law. During such an explosion of a supercritical mass of uranium, different types of matter form, but their combined mass is less than that of the original uranium. Why the loss? It is because some of the mass of the uranium is converted into an awesome flash of energy.
--Another problem with Lavoisier’s law on the conservation of matter arose in 1952 with the detonation of a thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb). In that explosion, hydrogen atoms combined to form helium. The mass of the resulting helium, though, was less than that of the original hydrogen. A portion of the mass of the hydrogen was converted into explosive energy, an explosion far more devastating than the bomb released over Hiroshima.
As these explosions proved, a small amount of matter represents an enormous quantity of energy. This link between matter and energy explains the power of the sun, which keeps us alive and well. What is the link? Well, some 40 years earlier, in 1905, Einstein had predicted a relationship between matter and energy.
--Many know of his equation E=mc2. Once Einstein formulated that relationship, other scientists could explain how the sun has kept shining for billions of years. Within the sun, there are continuous thermonuclear reactions. In this way, every second, the sun converts about 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium. This means that some 4 million tons of matter are transformed into solar energy, a fraction of which reaches earth and sustains life.
--Significantly, the reverse process is also possible. “Energy changes into matter when subatomic particles collide at high speeds and create new, heavier particles,” explains The World Book Encyclopedia. Scientists accomplish this on a limited scale using huge machines called particle accelerators, in which subatomic particles collide at fantastic speeds, creating matter. “We’re repeating one of the miracles of the universe—transforming energy into matter,” explains Nobel laureate physicist Dr. Carlo Rubbia"
Much more available.......
2016-03-10 4:00 am
Same thing as before Creation - no evidence.
2016-03-09 10:16 pm
Nobody knows, least of all the religious.
2016-03-09 9:41 pm
First there was a singularity - we have no strong theory as to why. If you wish to invoke a sky daddy then feel free.
Then the singularity inflated - we have no idea how - if you wish to invoke a beard in the sky then feel free.
The Universe is being slowly torn apart by Dark Energy - we have no idea what that is - feel free to call it satan
The Galaxies are held together by Dark Matter - we do not know what it is - feel free to call it fairy dust.
Sky daddies solve nothing, explain nothing and stop research.
Then the singularity inflated - we have no idea how - if you wish to invoke a beard in the sky then feel free.
The Universe is being slowly torn apart by Dark Energy - we have no idea what that is - feel free to call it satan
The Galaxies are held together by Dark Matter - we do not know what it is - feel free to call it fairy dust.
Sky daddies solve nothing, explain nothing and stop research.
2016-03-10 7:06 pm
it only dont make sense if you start with a belief there was a "before"
There are many things that happen in this universe that go completely against what you might think is common sense. But it is a fact they happen and can be demonstrated to happen
(have a look at some of the things that happen in quantum mechanics)
So the1st thing you need to learn is -
IGNORE COMMON SENSE - cos most likely using it will get you the wrong answer.
There are many things that happen in this universe that go completely against what you might think is common sense. But it is a fact they happen and can be demonstrated to happen
(have a look at some of the things that happen in quantum mechanics)
So the1st thing you need to learn is -
IGNORE COMMON SENSE - cos most likely using it will get you the wrong answer.
2016-03-10 7:43 pm
Sure it does. We know that the observed universe is expanding so it's quite logical to suggest that evrything was much closer together in the past. I favour the notion that there is a natural cycle of expansion and contraction.
So, before we have the Big Bang, there must be a Big Suck.
So, before we have the Big Bang, there must be a Big Suck.
2016-03-10 6:32 am
We need to learn nature is not about to make sense for us ,in fact does not need any description,reason or sense .It is what it is .The big bang theory is on base of study galaxies and how they born and what cause they explode .which it make us believe the origin of the universe is start same as galaxies start (by an explosion).Nw there's no reason ,no purpose for such thing ,it happen by it self and still there's no study to find out what the main reason was .This question it's brought us in to the most largest topic of the information ,where million of the discoveries on the material and gases is sub titles of the topic .All the branches of the science are under the topic of the universe and big bang theory.Now to make sense of something that has no purpose or reason is a topic that philosophically does not make any sense it self.Is like asking why water it has no color ? there's no reason nor purpose and just has no color and it is as it is ,now you can make million questions that was is not other color or other shape or other taste ,but none of them will give the answer to to make any sense.
2016-03-10 9:00 pm
In reality Big Bang was coined by Fred Hoyle.It does not mean an explosion or an implosion.Most likely Creation took place in the form of whirlpool as we observe our galaxy motion ,it forms like the shell of a Snell.
It was Rev Lemaitre who indicated that the massive structure of the Universe was really from a basic mass. According to the Biblical record of Creation, the particle of light was the first massive creation.
The Big Bang does not explain motion or the existence of space structure.
It was Rev Lemaitre who indicated that the massive structure of the Universe was really from a basic mass. According to the Biblical record of Creation, the particle of light was the first massive creation.
The Big Bang does not explain motion or the existence of space structure.
2016-03-09 8:48 pm
Dislike this if you suck on vinegary balls, and you like the taste of nut-sack in your mouth.
2016-03-13 6:57 pm
That's just a matter of opinion my m9
2016-03-12 3:29 pm
Well, there's a theory that there is a giant black hole in the middle of our galaxy. So it's easy to imagine how "everything" could get sucked into a dense point. Then it becomes unstable and explodes again. The theory is that all energy was packed into one small point, then at some point it exploded, thus expanding. And since matter is really just energy in an organized form that it would have everything we need to make everything in the universe.
2016-03-11 8:11 pm
You make no sense
2016-03-11 6:39 pm
Perhaps if I turned the volume down a little?
2016-03-11 7:41 am
No it does not and it cannot be proved. But ohhhhh does it sell, and make for snobby jobs, books and high
salaries.
salaries.
2016-03-11 5:23 am
Big bang is a scientific theory that explains the "bang" but not the cause.
2016-03-11 5:18 am
their are several theories.
1 Their was another universe (possibly multiple universes)in which their was a massive catastrophy on a universal scale that punched a hole in that universe.On our end this was the big bang
2 Their are multiple universes.When two universes collided it started another universe and again on our end this was the big bang.
1 Their was another universe (possibly multiple universes)in which their was a massive catastrophy on a universal scale that punched a hole in that universe.On our end this was the big bang
2 Their are multiple universes.When two universes collided it started another universe and again on our end this was the big bang.
參考: School 3 years Space Camp, 6 Years Adult Space Camp,The Universe on the History Channel,Known Universe on Nat Geo ,How the Universe Works on the Science Channel
2016-03-11 1:54 am
illumini
2016-03-10 8:17 pm
Antimatter. But if people dont know lots of things about the present. How will scientist be sure about something so distant.
2016-03-10 4:47 pm
acc to me it must be a cycle .
big bang, big crunch, and again big bang
big bang, big crunch, and again big bang
2016-03-10 3:57 pm
a cosmic egg came before the big bang
2016-03-10 2:49 pm
space
2016-03-10 12:28 pm
It's just a mathematical interpretation of what's observable and plausible in the universe. It will likely be replaced by something more intuitive someday. Eg, our sun and its emissions are real and observable. An infinitesimally small yet infinitesimally mass point in space is not, for sure.
2016-03-10 5:35 am
The big firecracker with the blue touchpaper fuse and the warning "light here and stand well back" and "use only under adult supervision"
Before the big bang the devil is in the detail
Before the big bang the devil is in the detail
2016-03-10 2:06 am
where here
2016-03-09 9:10 pm
nothing means true darkness and still there outside universe.
2016-03-11 12:59 am
There never was a big bang. The universe has existed for eternity and never had the moment of creation that the big bang theory suggests. There are a number of notable astronomers who concur — some of them give their views in this documentary which you may find interesting...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTM
2016-03-10 4:51 pm
The Big Bang was caused by time travelers.
2016-03-09 8:40 pm
probably star dust
2016-03-10 10:53 pm
It doesn't make sense because it is just a theory. GOD made the Universe and everything in it.
2016-03-09 8:40 pm
it is not supposed to when in doubt drop a bomb on it it's an American thing
2016-03-10 9:53 am
Big bang is just a theory. Theoretically, there was nothing before big bang. big bang is just made up with supports from evidences. It is not proven. And it is just a way of describing how the universe started. So it doesn't have to make sense.
收錄日期: 2021-04-21 17:14:44
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160309123742AARmHc4