Subscribe
Previous Post
This is my fourth post for Just Science Week.
I think the thing that trips up most people when they think about the Big Bang, is thinking about it in terms of an explosion, like a supernova or a nuclear bomb. This leads to some typical inaccurate assumptions.
- Since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded from a central point.
- The universe must be expanding into something, what?
- There was a time BEFORE the Big Bang.
These assumptions come from thinking about the Big Bang as a typical explosion, one originating from a single point and spewing matter out concentrically from there.
That’s not what the Big Bang was.
Illustration Credit: Universe-Review.ca
Technorati Tags: astronomy, cosmology, Just Science Week
The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.
So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.
Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’.
I know, that’s pretty trippy, so let me try stretch my writing skills to the absolute max and see if I can make this sound reasonably coherent.
To begin, clear your mind of any notion of an explosion. The Big Bang was not an explosion, not of matter anyway.
- The Big Bang occured, and at this moment, space and time are created. Now, we can talk about where and when. The notion of moment was born.
- Next something really strange happens, the inflationary period. In the smallest fraction of a second, the universe gets very big, very fast. Driven by vacuum energy. space and time are being stretched like a rubber sheet, there is no center. Space and time and simply being created everywhere all at once within the boundary between where space and time is and where it isn’t. That boundary is increasing.
- The incredibly short inflationary period ends as the vacuum energy is converted to heat. Driven by the inflation, the universe is set on its expansion.
- The universe begins to cool, atoms and regular matter are created from what’s left over when all matter-antimatter particles have wiped each other out. All that remains in the stuff that will become the stars, galaxies, MacBooks and iPods.
- By now, only 100 seconds have elapsed. As the universe gets older and larger, things cool down enough so that stars, galaxies and the stuff we’re all familiar with can form.
Read this for a little more detail.
This is incredibly simplistic, but what I want you to take away from this is that at no point was matter spewing forth from anything. Space and time itself was being created first. Ordinary matter (atoms, molecules etc) was created out of tiny imbalances of energy left over from the inflationary period.
It’s a little humbling to think that everything we can experience, everything that makes us who we are, is a cosmic afterthought made possible by infinitesimal imbalances of energy from the greatest of all natural events. No imbalances, no us.
If the number of matter-antimatter particles created by the vacuum energy that pushed the universe outward had been identical, the universe would be completely empty.
If anti-matter particles has outnumbered normal matter, we would be living in a completely different house.
So any universal boundary that exists (an edge to the universe), is between place and time, and nothing. Of existence and non-existence. Of laws of nature and no laws of nature.
It is that boundary which is expanding and has no center. It is the “when” and “where” that things can occur that is getting bigger all the time.
Imagine pulling a large rubber sheet with white dots on it from every direction. All of the dots are spreading apart from each other everywhere, not from some central point. From the perspective of each dot, all the other dots are moving away from it.
Outside of the sheet, nothing can happen, you can’t put stuff in there because there is no ‘in there’ to put it.
<Pause for a moment so you can smoke a doobie>
If everything in the universe is flying apart from everything else, this begs the question, Why aren’t the galaxies, stars, planets, the atoms in my body, also flying apart? Shouldn’t we all be slowly disintegrating as space and time expands?
After all, there is space and time in between protons and electrons, isn’t that space increasing all the time as well?
The answer is yes, but there are other forces at work at closer distances that fight against the expansion of the cosmos. If those forces didn’t exist (things like gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces), then nothing could form to begin with. It is those forces that create structure and beauty, and us.
For example, gravity keep atoms in a star together so they can shine, it also keeps stars clumped together in galaxies. On a local level, other forces can counteract the expansion of the universe. Chemical bonding and gravity keeps us alive.
These forces can’t hold out forever though. Eventually the universe will win. But for now, we have the upper hand.
All illustrations used in the post: Universe-Review.ca
Now that the universe can create itself it is easy to see that an item to fit in space is a design
that where psychology is the foundation of life and our pragmatic ideas of generic information is stored this is the only difference between who tells the side of the brain that this is the left brain why should it be any different from who tells the brain that this is the right side. Our whole belief system is badly connected and I never knew libraries of information hated each other. This is another theory the importance of this over that is the basic conception of the spiritual events you read today or whenever you choose to. I am Atheist I don’t preach I investigate. Its evolution and that’s fair tell a Hindu to go to hell maybe evolution will show you something new. Darwin didn’t set out to disprove god he set out to find why people look different from people and at that day and age it’s ethically wrong so animals he did it on animals that’s why it’s not that explosive. Monologue me.
721 days ago
[...] The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space. [...]
735 days ago
[...] Knowledge Age – Learn To Appreciate It The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space Scientists Explain Why Computers Crash But We Don’t The Intellectual Situation 30 Ways You [...]
what
Seriously like, that’s pure mental by the way.
I’m glad the origin of the Universe is cleared up – what’s for breakfast?
That takes slightly more faith to follow/believe then the existence of God. Well done.
[...] If anti-matter particles has outnumbered normal matter, we would be living in a completely different house. [...]
I would say that is just the way of looking at things … maybe in that (other) house, we would be calling what exists as ‘matter’ and the other stuff ‘anti-matter’ !
736 days ago
[...] The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space : EveryJoe – Sports News – Tech Reviews… (tags: science good-reads reference astronomy) [...]
Faith is faith and reason is reason, and never the twain shall meet. ;-)
My friends, the Big Bang Theory affirms what is written in the Bible, although the Atheists and Agnostics could be awestruck by its depth and magnificence without referencing it to any religious texts, including the utterly revealing Holy Bible. It is rightfully so, because it takes the basic mind of every child to appreciate the wonders of what seems to these novices as accurate predictions, while those adults that progressed find the Holy Scriptures as narration of the long-established truths, and the rest of the adults, no matter if their intelligence soars higher than ever, regressed into believing that such holy manuscripts are not just unholy to them but a source of confusion or illusion, and further rendering such as unscientific and totally useless. But wait! Are they dragging the holy passages in light of their own merely inconclusive science? It is analogous to measuring the galaxies with the use of a mere yardstick in your hands instead in terms of a light year. They do bore themselves to death of the enormous numerals, yet never see the Light!
But, is there really no science to it? By the way, no wonder why Atheists are termed “Fools” in the Bible: They make their belief, rooted in their inconclusive and ever-evolving science, so conclusive in their own right! Yet, does this true logic spare the Agnostics? In the end, the burden of truth lies on such blind Agnosticism: its advocates play too much rhetoric, and ultimately resting on a wall inside the borders of intellectual laziness. Now, get ready to embrace the higher science to what is in the Sacred Texts—“The Science of Intent”.
We never really appreciate the full intent without the consummation of the action under scrutiny. Just imagine the few seconds from the start of the Big Bang; any thought that the elementary particles at that time would eventually turn into gold and silver to be worshipped upon idolatrous life forms that constitute the same elementary particles would be inconceivable. Yet, we can fully comprehend it now as we are literally surrounded by ignorant idolaters. Now, it is within anyone’s comprehension that there exist only two completely opposite intents in terms of belief: Intent to teach and intent to deceive. So striking are the dissimilarities that we can simply dissociate the two extremes, and any attempt to cause their association borders on ultimate deception or ignorance. As man is a social being, we tend to personify everything that we have a deep connection, such that the beneficial intent is personified as the Holy Spirit and the destructive intent, as the Evil One. If this newfound science of INTENT is alien to most scientists, yet it holds the key of branches of mathematics and science, like the statistics, forensics, behavioural sciences, etc., then why should these Agnostic and Atheist scientists fret on the rational thinking of most man to further such science into religion? Instead of fretting, they should look deep into their own selves and try to understand that there exist a morality behind everything, and it is the light that they should embrace or advocate, rather that the downward spiral of detached and impassive science or investigation. Atheism and Agnosticism are merely products of higher form of rebellion to one’s intuition and awareness with which both are beyond mere physical sciences can handle and rationalize.
Just ponder at what Pete above is trying to convey: in Isaiah 45:12 Statistics will prove the eternal knowledge around the recent theory of Big Bang—“I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS, and all their host have I commanded.” (Emphasis supplied.) Such Supreme Being is both God and Love, with all the purest intent: Our Loving Creator who can restore us in His Own Right.
D. Brown,
The problem with all those atrocities that were committed in the name of religion (especially Christianity because that is the one I know), is that they stopped listening to what God has told us and what Jesus also taught us (certain things are wrong, but that doesn’t mean we should kill everyone who is/does something wrong because we all do wrong things all the time, but build relationships and try to help them) and started doing what they felt was the “right thing to do”. It’s all about relationships. Christians are the biggest reason people don’t want to learn about Christ. It’s sad. (If you are curious about what I believe, I would be happy to talk to you; if not, that’s fine.)
If being agnostic means you do not presume to know what cannot be known, do you think/know the Big Bang happened? As far as I know, it has not been proven and is still a theory.
If I sound like I am being unprofessional, let me know because I am not trying to arouse anger, only understand what others think.
I don’t mean to sound like just another “Bible thumpper”, but there should be a capitol ‘g’ in God because it is his name, regardless if it you don’t think he is real, and you used it in such context. Just like Thor, god of thunder, is still spelled with a capitol ‘t’. (Yes, I even capitalize proper nouns in IM. I might be a loser for this…)
Chris
I’m a Creationist that lives in QuantumLand..
..but -’then’- (that’s) neither HERE nor THERE..
;- )
Thank you Chris,
Agnosticism, at least the short version, means the belief that the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproved.
You wrote: ” I don’t see any benefit in trying to make everyone see things in the same light.”
Everyone should believe as they wish….save it hurts no one else.
Unfortunately religion sometimes does indeed hurt people, the destruction of the world trade center and the continuing destruction of life by suicide bombers in Iraq and elsewhere and the christian component involved in the decisions to attack Iraq being prime examples.
The American Indians were slaughtered in part because Christians thought them heathens.
And of course the crusades and the Spanish inquisition come to mind.
But I do agree with you regarding personal believe, but only with the above mentioned restriction …that one’s personal religious beliefs harm no one else in any way.
D. Brown
D Brown,
Nice rebuttal!
When I said that every law in science are always true. That is because it seems everyone who is against religion of any kind (though some things in science seem a lot like some sort of religion to me) seem to say that every scientific law is absolute truth, and some theories, and I was just trying to use their own argument against them. I guess I failed at this plan.
I find what the Bible says about us is true, but I don’t see any benefit in trying to make everyone see things in the same light. With that said, my goal was to make people think, not change their minds.
I am not sure what you mean by being agnostic, but I guess I just need to get out more.
Chris,
You said: ” every law we have in science is the basis for everything in science and those laws are always true and cannot be changed. Since there is absolute truth, there has to be somewhere that makes all this true. In other words, God must exist”
You do not understand science. Science is not about immutable laws or beliefs, science is extremely flexible, religion is totally rigid and unyielding.
The “laws” and theories of science have been changed countless times. If a theory is proven wrong by other researchers or findings then that theory is discarded.
Not so long ago science thought the Newtonian laws were the last word in physics, then along came Quantum theory…perhaps someday “it” will be shot down or modified.
Point is science is flexible and changing, religious beliefs are not…
BTW I’m agnostic, I don’t presume to know what cannot be known.
Isaiah 45:12
I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
I always find it interesting when people try to figure out where everything came from. I read what most every one on this had to say about the explanation of the big bang theory. I enjoy reading people say that we can’t possibly understand the big bang and the universe because we are only human with limited knowledge and ability, while at the same time saying God doesn’t exist because it just doesn’t make sense that God could exist. It seems to me that that argument kind of contradicts itself. Creationists do not help their own argument by simply stating that that is how it is. This tends to make everyone on the other side of the spectrum very upset and kills all possible credibility. Creationists tend to view science as evil and, thus, are quick to refute it. Those against Creationism tend to see religion as some defect in people who can’t seem to accept that there is no absolute truth. Well, science and religion go pretty well together, especially Judeo-Christian religions. There is absolute truth and much of science points that out; every law we have in science is the basis for everything in science and those laws are always true and cannot be changed. Since there is absolute truth, there has to be somewhere that makes all this true. In other words, God must exist. The most logical god from every religion is the Judeo-Christian God. If God created the universe, then we have a moral standard, right and wrong is not relative. If the universe just happened on it’s own, then there is no moral standard we would all be living in complete and utter chaos.
With all that said, what does all this talk of the beginning of the universe have to do with anything that is happening today?
Nothing, other than a moral standard.
We should be concerned with people around us and their well being, not contemplating theories of how everything came about.
Everything I have stated, though I have not used fun quotes and equations, is true. If you think what I have stated is false and want to tell me why, just leave a comment and be sure to mention my name.
Chris
Example When a oil well fire is blown out by dyna mite the fire is put out by vacuum. example 2 when a nuclear explosion takes place it blows outward but implodes in upon itself to create the visible mushroom cloud. Your answer on the big bang only makes sense to me if all the matter you speak of are the escapees of the blast, i.e. (objects we call the universe) Your answer even answers the question of black holes creation due to size and atomic mass of the object. But consider that the event horizon of a black hole is limited even in the space time continuium then why isn’t ther a limit to the universe even if it hasn’t been reached in our present understanding of the process.
for those confused about the rubber sheet analogy, try this (this is how it was taught to me in a physics lab long ago):
Imagine you are a 2-dimensional being, say like a little dot, or a little circle. Further, imagine you live on the surface of a balloon with other dot-friends. You can do this at home by drawing dots on a real balloon with a marker.
Now as far as you know, the universe is flat. You can move along your 2 dimensions, around the surface of this balloon. If the balloon is big, you may think you live on an infinite plain, and the ‘Universe’ may appear to go on forever. You are 2D, so you cannot perceive that you exist on a curved surface. In fact, even imagining a curved surface may be difficult. All of your dot friends live an apparent distance away from you.
Now imagine that the balloon is being slowly inflated. From your perspective, the universe appears to be getting bigger. All of your friends are getting farther away from you. You might even conclude that you are at ‘the center’, since they all seem to be moving directly away from you.
But back in the 3d world, we can see that the actual ‘center’ is not on the rubber surface at all, but inside the balloon. You can still move around on the surface just fine, and you can still ‘collide’ with a friend, as long as you were moving faster than the rate of inflation was stretching the surface.
Your ‘shape’ may begin to be distorted, but let’s say you had a ‘force’ that kept the ink that you are drawn in close together (gravity).
That is how hubble expansion works.
Now just add 1 dimension to everything. Instead of living in a 2d world, we live in a 3d (spatially) world. Instead of being on the surface of a 3d balloon, we live on the surface of a 4d ‘balloon’ (roughly, there are lots of debates on the actual shape).
That is why it appears everything is expanding away from us. That is why it looked (before Hubble’s explanation) like we were at the ‘center’. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to talk about what it is expanding into, in the same way that to the dot on a balloon, everything outside the surface ( like inside and outside the balloon) isn’t ‘space’. It may be like ‘space’, but not in any sense that the dot knows or can access.
For the balloon dwellers, the big bang was when the balloon had radius=0. Same for us, except the ‘radius’ is not in a dimension we live in or can easily conceive. It’s a mistake to think of our universe as some 3 dimensional space expanding into some larger 3 dimensional space.
Many physics students actually do this lab in an introductory course with balloons, and chart the changing distance between dots placed randomly on the balloon vs the rate of expansion (blowing up the balloon) to derive the hubble constant.
It’s hard to conceive initially, but once you’ve done the experiment yourself, it’s kind of hard to argue against.
it’s the grandest example of dishonesty in the world: the culties find it absolutely contradictory that the universe doesn’t have a cause, but proven without a doubt that the soul fairy doesn’t have one. no amount of stupidity can possibly explain this incidence rate of this transparently false argument.