Explain this whole "Big Bang" thing to me

**cerin** · 01-11-2005

I think we should all become Budhists(I dont't how to spell it) and just sit and conemplate the mysteries of life until we are enlightened.

Rastaman Vibrations

**adrianxw** · 01-12-2005

One of the current popular theories as to what happened before our universe existed is "Membrane theory", more colloquially "Brane theory" or simply "M theory". If you search around you will find resources that cover it to a greater or lesser degree of clarity.

Like many really advanced theoretical areas, it arose from an earlier very esoteric theory, in this case string theory.

Sadly, these very abstract ideas are difficult to grasp without substantial background, so...

>>> how does it work?

... would take weeks to try and explain. I will also be the first to admit I have not fully grasped all of the concepts, I'm still thinking about it.

There is an dummies guide to strings and branes here, is 3 hours long though, and really only glosses over the material.

**Sang-drax** · 01-12-2005

Originally Posted by axon

I'll try to explain how I understand it using the Penrose and Hawking theory - apologies if I mix something up, as I don't have the book handy.

That was a good explanation. Time does not flow in a straight line and I belive Hawking used the analogy that asking what happend before Big Bang is like asking what lies north of the north pole.

**Govtcheez** · 01-12-2005

> what do you think created the primordial ooze that well..... banged. There are a terribly large amount of signs pointing towards the existence of a god.

You don't understand what abiogenesis or evolution are, and "we don't know what happened" isn't evidence for god.

Thanks to everyone who gave me some new stuff to look into. I'll definitely have a look at as much of it as I can when I get a chance.

edit: As a side note, I just got my first copy of New Scientist in the mail yesterday. I can't wait to get that every week!

**Kleid-0** · 01-12-2005

Originally Posted by Codeplug

... is that the Universe will someday stop expanding and start contracting and implode - perhaps starting the process all over again.

I believe they say it's being caused by an unknown force too, they call it: the dark force (or something like that). Luke will save us!

**Perspective** · 01-12-2005

>> they call it: the dark force (or something like that). Luke will save us!

do you mean dark matter? ... the substance that holds galaxies together.

**ober** · 01-12-2005

If I was to base my understanding on the first 18 years of my life, I'd have to say I go along with creationism and the whole big bang theory is bunk.

If I were to base my understanding on the past 7 years of my life, I'd probably tend to think that the big bang theory is not so much bunk as it is not right. And who is to say that we are the first incarnation of life on this planet? I'm almost willing to believe that if time existed millions or even billions of years ago, something else, possibly far more superior than us existed first. Then something happened, wiped out the whole thing, and badda bing... here we go again.

**Hunter2** · 01-12-2005

Something in effect causes itself to come into being, which is not theoretically impossible.

But, for this to settle into a stable loop that never ends, everything has to happen in a perfectly precise manner, and the slightest deviation (say, if that butterfly happens to skip a beat) will likely cause the entire system to eventually degenerate (or change) until it is destroyed. And, that also argues for a creator who set the entire loop in motion to begin with, although that's also arguable. The probability of the entire situation, especially given evidence for the Big Bang and other theories, is marginal. Even the 1/400000000000 chance (or whatever it was) of the earth coming into existence from the Big Bang is probably greater than the probability of everything settling in an infinite loop of universal mobius strip.

something else, possibly far more superior than us existed first.

And, apparently, they weren't superior enough to prevent themselves from being wiped out. Which, of course, doesn't bode well for our children

**Zach L.** · 01-12-2005

Cheez - I'm sure you've already heard about it (or perhaps read it), but Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe is a great (i.e. readable) book that talks about string theory the unification of the physical laws.

**Govtcheez** · 01-12-2005

> I'd probably tend to think that the big bang theory is not so much bunk as it is not right.

How so?

> And who is to say that we are the first incarnation of life on this planet?

No one's saying that

Besides, the BB theory has nothing to do with how life on this planet evolved.

> Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe is a great (i.e. readable) book that talks about string theory the unification of the physical laws.

The documentary was linked in adrian's post. Thanks, though

**Jez** · 01-12-2005

I refer you all to my earlier thread "newton + einstein were wrong".

It's clearly (logically + philosophically) wrong to suggest that the universe can have any boundaries.

**Zach L.** · 01-12-2005

Hmm... Didn't see that, but the book is quite good too.

**JaWiB** · 01-12-2005

>>Cheez - I'm sure you've already heard about it (or perhaps read it), but Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe is a great (i.e. readable) book that talks about string theory the unification of the physical laws.

I'm currently reading that (Christmas gift). I just got into the chapter on string theory, but so far it is a pretty good book as compared to the other related books I've read (I think much more understandable than Hawking's books, but maybe only because I read those first...)

**adrianxw** · 01-13-2005

>>> much more understandable than Hawking's books

I read with some amusement, (New Scientist), that having solved the problem of how information can escape from a black hole, Hawking's next great challenge should be to find out why information cannot escape from a Hawking book.