Big bang and God...

Ruby

Graduate Poster
R
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
1,042
In leaving behind Christiniaty, there is much that makes more sense to me...but I am stumped about a few things. Excuse my ignorance...but I am trying to understand how it is possible for the world to come into existence without a creator. I just can't make sense of the big bang happening without a creator. How could life form by chance?

If someone can explain in layman terms what might have caused the big bang, and how life could form by chance, I'd appreciate it!!
 
Nothing like starting with the easy stuff eh? ;)

One thing about the Big Bang, I understand that it is meaningless to try and refer to 'before' the BB. Sort of like... no not sort if, it IS refering to before time began. Time is a part of space, with the universe starting off in a singularity all of space was in one infinite point, there effectivly was no space or time. There is the possibility the universe had it's start in a quantum fluctuation. Then there is this quote I can't remember where it is from

"As to why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time"


Now as to life, the formation of life is honestly just the result of natural processes. The way the universe works allowed for the existance of self replicating materials that allowed variation in the replication. Once that got started here the cat got let out of the bag and we get tons of variations.

I know these are probably no where near as good an answer as you'd like, but it is something to keep you busy till the smarter people answer. :)
 
This little question has a rather lengthy answer. (I could say the same thing about the "Second Amendment" thread, too.)

It is puzzling to understand how it is possible for things to come into existence without a creator. But if you say "Things came into existence because of a creator," have you really answered anything? If you then ask, "Where did the creator come from?" aren't you right back where you started?

As for where everything came from, the honest answer might be "I don't know."

Personally, I much prefer to an honest "I don't know" than to some bogus religion-based solution manufactured by someone else who doesn't know, either.
 
Ruby,

No one knows or probably will ever know what happened prior to the Big Bang. It's one of those things you just have to live with. Putting a creator behind it may make people feel better, but all they're doing is fooling themselves.

There are an infinite number of things you won't know during your lifetime. Why let this one get to you? :)
 
As to the formation of life:

Living things as we know them are made of organic materials. In many instances, the organic materials are organized as chains of amino acids to form proteins. Proteins are "the building blocks of life," and amino acids are "the building blocks of proteins."

In a series of famous experiments by Miller and Urey (and others), organic materials (water, ammonia, hydrogen and methane) were put into a container and were subjected to electrical arcs (to simulate lightning). In a very short time (less than a week), amino acids and other organic compounds appeared in the container. There was no human creator, no designer... these things just formed under ordinary conditions.

If the same forces are at work for billions of years, the formation of life becomes probable. Not just possible, but highly probable.
 
Ruby, your first question has been handled, so let me tackle the life starting issue.

Imagine something that can replicate itself. Don't care what, say a matchbox car :) Each time they replicate, they come out just a bit different.

It stands to reason (and all our experiments) that when you put those things in a hostile environment, some will do better than others.

Those that die before reproducing will not be able to influence the next generation. Therefore, in general, the things that don't cope well will die off, and those that cope well will continue to survive.

To use my matchbox example, put them in a room with a normal (ie destructive) 3 year old. The kid will try to stomp on them, flush 'em down the toilet, eat them, etc. Pretty quickly any car that can't evade the 3 year old will no longer exist, and now you have a fleet of cars that are better. Some will be faster, but some will be structually stronger, others may just blend into the carpet.

Does that make sense so far?

A natural objection is that there are only tiny changes in each generation, how can that add up to the huge differences we see in different species?

The math behind it is nonintuitive, yet proven. In laymans term, suppose only 1% of the population has an advantage that gives them only a 1% greater chance of survival than the rest of the population. Those are small numbers. However, these things work exponentially. For example, in the next generation, just a couple extra kids survived in that 1% population than in the rest of the population. So now the ratio is 1.1%.

No Big Deal, right? Wrong. Because now they reproduce again, and now there are more in that group, so even more will survive. So this time it is 1.4%. Next generation 2.3%. Next generation 4.9%. The next generation 18.7%. The next generation 47.5%. The next generation 87.1%. (I just totally made those numbers up, but it's basically how it works)

So in just a few generations, you have a minor segment of the population with a tinyadvantage, and it is spread throughout the population in just a few generations.

And if that is not impressive, remember things like bacteria reproduce every 20 minutes or so! A couple of hours, and you have just bred for an advantage.

So, if you started just with a very simple chemical that can reproduce itself, it'll just start adapting. Not because of any hard to understand rules, but because that's just what happens when you make more copies of a good thing than a bad thing.

Note I didn't say anything about genes, mutations, etc. We can get into the mechanics of it if you want, but can you see how _anything_ that reproduces itself with variations will neccessarily evolve in a hostile environment? If not, just ask questions, there's a lot of us who will be happy to explain it.

How those first chemicals got started, nobody knows yet. There are ideas, but nothing proven. However, scientists conclude that evolution is true because it is a very simple explanation (what I wrote above is the gist of it, the rest of the theory is just working out the details) for what we see around us. Again, if you have questions about the nature of that evidence, just ask.
 
Ruby,

What if the creator is a really giant alien who created the big bang in some gigantic test-tube?

That still doesn't make them God, as in

Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omni-benevolent

(Which are pretty much the 3 things that all definitions of God pretty much share)


There are probably an infinite number of ways that the universe could have come into existance. You could suppose any number of them, if you somehow imagine a time before the universe.

But the question is, what means "coming into" existence. That implies a before and and after, and causality, which is like a time question. And we know that time is mearly a direction in the universe. Time is an aspect of the universe, entwined with space itself. Time started with the big bang.

It's like asking "what's north of the North Pole?"

Well, you can't answer that question. There is no such thing as "North" when you are standing at the north pole. Similarly, there is no such thing as "before" when you are standing at the beginning of time.

To ask "Who created the universe?" You could answer "it always has existed, from the beginning of time."

It's an more logical answer than "Who created the Universe?" "God Created it." "Who created God?" "God has always existed, from the beginning of time."
 
Here's the short answer (much hand-waving follows):

First, the Planck length. Max Planck discovered that there was a number (a very very very small number) which was effectively the smallest thing you could have. Expressed as distance, the Planck length is the smallest distance you can measure, like the limit of resolution of your ruler. Expressed as energy, it's the smallest bit of energy (the so-called quantum). Expressed as time, it is the smallest bit of time you can measure. (Remember that time and distance are functions of each other, so the smallest distance and the smallest time are related).

Then Stephen Hawking discovered that underneath this limit, all sorts of hanky panky was going on. For instance, sometimes particles (like say an electron) will just appear out of nothing, for no reason at all. So the old adage that something cannot come from nothing is false: it happens a gazillion times a second.

Of course, you are wondering, why don't we notice this? Well, its because the universe is as bad as a bank: you can't take money out without putting money in. So when that electron just pops into being, an anti-electron is also created. And here's the kicker: the two of them wander around a bit, and then collide. Well you know what happens when a particle and an anti-particle collide: they both go woosh! And the energy they create from their explosion is exactly the same amount of energy it took to create them... so everything balances out!

But wait, you say. Wouldn't we notice all this wooshing? The answer is, all of this takes place under the Planck limit. So no, we don't notice it. You know that movies are really just still frames displayed really quickly, right? And because your eyes can't adjust faster than 30 times a second or so, you can't tell. You don't see the stillness, just the motion. The Planck limit is like that: you can't see well enough to see the individual actions, just the net result.

So... imagine the universe when there was no matter in it. No distance, either (and hence no time but that's a different issue). Nothing at all. So along comes some innocent particle, pops into being just like they always do, but wait: there is no distance. Well you know what happens when you stuff 20 lbls of potatos into a 5lb bag, right. No distance means that the first particle had infinite density. Infinite density means infinte mass, which means infinite energy. And stuffing infinite energy into a tiny point means kaboom!

And there's your Big Bang. Out of nothing. Of course, now that we have distance, we don't have infinite energy anymore. So all those little guys popping in and out don't matter so much. But they still serve to evaporate black holes, so we're grateful they're around.

Now, onto life:

Take a few trillion megatons of loose dirt, and dump into empty space. Nothing around, just empty space. Come back a few thousand years later, and what shape will the lump of dirt have formed? That's right, a sphere. Every single time. The sphere is the best balance between all the competeing gravitational pulls of each little piece of dirt. So, absent any other influence (like gravity from somewhere else), a pile of dirt will always form a sphere.

What this tells us is that there is some law of physics that causes dirt to form a sphere. Well, we have seen chemicals that organize themselves into patterns (like crystals). We have also seen chemical transformations that form patterns, cycling from one form to another. Apparently there is some law of physics that causes chemicals to fall into patterns that eventually lead to life. It's not chance, anymore than the lump of dirt formed a sphere by chance.

Now the particular life formed is controlled by chance. Our sphere of dirt isn't going to be perfectly round, of course: there will be little hills and valleys in it. Which hills and where they valleys are are determined by chance, just as what kind of life arises is goverened by chance. But the basic process is like a rock rolling downhill.


Did this help?
 
Victor Stenger is a leading particle physicist. Here is his take on how the Universe was created out of nothing:

"Every measurement that we make indicates that the total energy of the Universe is balanced between the rest energy that's in the matter, the kinetic energy that's in the motion of objects, and then this is balanced by a negative potential energy of gravity. And the total energy is very close to zero. So, if the total energy is zero, and if you had zero energy to begin with, there was no violation of energy conservation. There was no miracle that created energy at the beginning of the Universe (other than, perhaps, a little quantum fluctuation that is, again, in agreement with existing knowledge, and so would not be a miracle).

Hope it sheds some light on the subject.
 
Yahzi,

Bravo. Well written.



(Now please tell us what causes that wackyness below the planck limit.)
 
I don't know the answer to either of these questions, or how to answer them.

I simply have a question of my own: why couldn't life come into existence by chance or luck?

Why does there have to be a motivating "creator" behind existence...especially given that life as we find it on earth is so completely varried, random and seemingly disconnected (things that live at the bottom of the oceans near vulcanic thrermals to man). To me, a mere observer and no scientist or religious scholar, nothing about life seems predicted or predictable. It seems traits and varrieties are many and varried, yet with the exception of the same organic/chemical basis, there is nothing to suggest any sort of profound uniform organizing principal.

I don't know if that makes sense or is true, but chance and luck are as good an explaination as "god" unless you can show something inherent in the existence of life that requires a creator...and that I am not sure you can do.
 
Yahzi said:
You know that movies are really just still frames displayed really quickly, right? And because your eyes can't adjust faster than 30 times a second or so, you can't tell.
Click to expand...

i hate to nitpick and thread jack (actually, i don't hate it, i love it), but the human eye can differentiate well over 200 frames per second as long as they are distinct, non motion blurred frames. movies and tv looks smooth (tv more than movies, as celluloid film, at least to avid video gamer me, has a very distinct flicker) because each frame is blurred into the one before and the one after.
 
200 seems a bit high to me. Where do you get that number?

The test should be of flicker. White and black alternating. How fast does it have to be before people percieve it as a smooth grey value?

I'd put the number closer to 72hertz, which is the flicker rate of your top-of-the-line 3-bladed movie projectors. I don't know anyone who can perceive the flicker at that speed.


(most current movie theaters have 2-bladed projectors, so that's flickering at 48 hertz. Do you percieve a flicker in the theater?)
 
Congratulations Ruby!

Great Questions!

I won't go into them here, since they are pretty lengthy and MUCH more elegantly put by Carl Sagan in the Cosmos collection. GET IT if you haven't seen it. . . he explains it brilliantly. If you don't agree post back, and I'll buy them from you, since I've scrateched up my collection! You have nothing to loose, and a WHOLE LOT to gain!

One quick point about this question though, which I think is really important:

How it is possible for the world to come into existence without a creator?

-How is it possible then for the creator exist? Since he would need a creator too? You can't say, 'Everything needs a creator, but God doesn't need a creator'

I know that doesn't answer your question, but I just wanted to make sure that point was made.

Again, please take a look at the Cosmos collection. . .
 
Yahzi, you did an awesome job describing the Big Bang.

Brown, also did an awesome job describing life.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

If the formation of Life by chance still seems unusual, consider this: 100s of millions of years ago, the oceans were teaming organic molecules. The organic molecules didnt form by chance alone, they formed as a result of chance and the laws of Physics. In an ocean of organic molecules, it doesnt seem unlikely (actually its very probable) that a few amino acids would come together to form the first proteins.
 
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but this post is so full of inaccuracies, I have to comment.

Yahzi said:
Here's the short answer (much hand-waving follows):

First, the Planck length. Max Planck discovered that there was a number (a very very very small number) which was effectively the smallest thing you could have. Expressed as distance, the Planck length is the smallest distance you can measure, like the limit of resolution of your ruler. Expressed as energy, it's the smallest bit of energy (the so-called quantum). Expressed as time, it is the smallest bit of time you can measure. (Remember that time and distance are functions of each other, so the smallest distance and the smallest time are related).

This is simply a plausible conjecture, based on the physics we have at hand. There is no scientific evidence for any of this.


Then Stephen Hawking discovered that underneath this limit, all sorts of hanky panky was going on.

Hawking had nothing to do with any of the "discoveries" mentioned in this post, except for that of the last sentence quoted here.


For instance, sometimes particles (like say an electron) will just appear out of nothing, for no reason at all. So the old adage that something cannot come from nothing is false: it happens a gazillion times a second.

It is far better to think of this as simply being a misunderstanding of "nothing".


Of course, you are wondering, why don't we notice this? Well, its because the universe is as bad as a bank: you can't take money out without putting money in. So when that electron just pops into being, an anti-electron is also created. And here's the kicker: the two of them wander around a bit, and then collide. Well you know what happens when a particle and an anti-particle collide: they both go woosh! And the energy they create from their explosion is exactly the same amount of energy it took to create them... so everything balances out!

But wait, you say. Wouldn't we notice all this wooshing? The answer is, all of this takes place under the Planck limit.


Your quite nice description is based on quantum electrodynamics - for which the Planck limit is irrelevant


So no, we don't notice it. You know that movies are really just still frames displayed really quickly, right? And because your eyes can't adjust faster than 30 times a second or so, you can't tell. You don't see the stillness, just the motion. The Planck limit is like that: you can't see well enough to see the individual actions, just the net result.

So... imagine the universe when there was no matter in it. No distance, either (and hence no time but that's a different issue). Nothing at all. So along comes some innocent particle, pops into being just like they always do, but wait: there is no distance. Well you know what happens when you stuff 20 lbls of potatos into a 5lb bag, right. No distance means that the first particle had infinite density. Infinite density means infinte mass, which means infinite energy. And stuffing infinite energy into a tiny point means kaboom!

I am not sure where the heck you got this description, but its simply fantasy. The only cosmological scenario we have evidence for is an inflationary universe. It is well worth reading "The Inflationary Universe" by Guth. He explains lots of things very nicely - for example, why gravitional energy is "negative", and exactly counterbalances the positive energy that makes up the trees, flowers and us. Thus we did not get "something out of nothing".


And there's your Big Bang. Out of nothing. Of course, now that we have distance, we don't have infinite energy anymore. So all those little guys popping in and out don't matter so much. But they still serve to evaporate black holes, so we're grateful they're around.
Click to expand...

Let me point out a few other things: It is true that there is a simple solution to the equations of General Relativity for which time "originates" at the Big Bang. Those solutions also bceome unphysical (infinite density etc) at time t=0. We do not know that time "began" then - its simply a useful model. It seems unlikely this model is correct all the way down to t=0 for a variety of technical reasons - the simplest is that it doesnt take quantum effects into account. So one should always be leery about treating philosophical positions built on such a model as anything but a useful way of sharpening the mental saw, so to speak.
 
Tez said:
Let me point out a few other things: It is true that there is a simple solution to the equations of General Relativity for which time "originates" at the Big Bang. Those solutions also bceome unphysical (infinite density etc) at time t=0. We do not know that time "began" then - its simply a useful model. It seems unlikely this model is correct all the way down to t=0 for a variety of technical reasons - the simplest is that it doesnt take quantum effects into account. So one should always be leery about treating philosophical positions built on such a model as anything but a useful way of sharpening the mental saw, so to speak
Click to expand...
Indeed. I find it somewhat irritating to hear people who should know better banging on about the age of the Universe. We haven't the faintest f*cking idea how old the Universe is. Some inflationary models quite happily extend back to past infinity. We have a good lower limit, but that's an entirely different creature. It's not at all clear that the Universe need begin in a singularity at all, since inflation throws Hawking-Penrose out the window by violating the strong energy condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom