Begining of the Universe: What are your opinions/theories?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
The age of the universe is also in constant arguement. What is the general basis behind your statement Grunt? I am curious. You realize there are also theories that the universe was formed in a very short time?

Egal, what if god is a seperate body outside our universe. The keeper of Bags. (reference to another thread). Wait, you will argue we are also part of that body. I retract my statement. :D

---

We can get a decent view of the timeframe for the universe by looking at our own planet... You know that the universe would have to be created a while before the creation of our own planet...

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm I would like to read some of the material that guy references, as that would give me a better outlook, as I'm sure he's twisting it to disprove the big bang even moreso.

Most of the theories that the universe was formed in a very short time have been disproved from what I've seen, so that pretty much throws that away.

Hey Grunt, Universe creation and planet forming are NOT synonymous. Planets are forming now in other nebulus clusters. However the theory of our own solar formation is not long after the big bang only about 6 billion years. The age of our solar system is determined by dating objects and the oldes object found so far is around 4 to 5 BILLION years. 4.6 if I remember correctly.

There are many theories for the "Big Bang": dark matter to matter, all the matter that is here existed, new matter was formed etc. However background radiation that is measurable seem to indicate that the Universe is 18 BILLION years old or so. This would point to matter regeneration? That facts are: The universe is expanding, and we can see backgroud radiation with modern equipment; and one other: helium levels as as predicted. Why is universe expansion that important? If you reverse the time scale, like playing a movie backwards the universe would come together and collide into a massive object.

The universe was not created in a day, or 7. For hundreds of thousands of years (and this is Steven Hawking) the universe was too hot for atoms to form. Upon greation of our universe the temperature went form a few trillions of degrees down to a few billions of degrees. All in a few seconds. At this point there are at least two good working theories that light could not escape because the matter, that is the atoms where too dense. So picture this dark cloud of matter, not like we see today just nuclei, electron, protons and photons.... etc. It wasn't until a BILLION years after the formation that temperatures cooled enough to allow atoms to form into molecules and molecules to form into heavy elements that would begin the process of forming the universe we see today. At this point the cloud lifted as room was given to allow light to escape! That light is what we see today as background radiation. And it wasn't until the 60s that we could see it.

Getting long, but I wanted to point out some misconceptions in cosmological history.

//EDIT as you can see the "big bang" happened in a short time, the universe took a LONG time to form and there are other less accepted theories. We will never get beyond the big bank because we do not know or will never know what laws were in effect.

My theory? Hmm...

Somewhere in a little room there is a very old creature who lies sleeping. So long as he sleeps, he dreams of our existance and the universe in which we live. When he wakes, everything we know to be reality is destroyed.

Creationist here.

I believe in a Creator as the "first cause" of a domino affect of affects, falling back on the age old cosmological argument that places us at either accepting a first cause or an infinite regression of causes and affects. Mind you, before I cause an uproar of objections, it is by no means an end-all argument which cannot be countered, but in my mind, it is sufficient when combined with a multitude of other factors, and it also ties in rather nicely with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I understand it.

Quote:

---

and it also ties in rather nicely with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I understand it.

---

You CANNOT leave it hanging there :)

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
The Second Law of Thermodynamics. by Brig Klyce

:D

Quote:

---

You CANNOT leave it hanging there

---

I'm just really trying not to write my usual six paragraph philosophical posts. Honest. :D

G or no G, ehtereal body or none: there is significant evidence that all things universal popped into being from a central location. It's interesting to see religion morph as scientific discoveries are accepted. Wait until I get started with Egal <-- humor. But I am going to a U2 concert to party and act foolish among particular pop star fans like me. See ya!

AGHGGGHHHHHHHHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHHHH

Hi


Although I am a physicist, I do not want to defend
the physical point of view, nor do I want to attack
the creationists. I think, whatever approach one chooses,
the most important point is to try to build a consistent
argumentation (even religion bases its arguments on
fundamental assumptions). However, let me try to
summarise as correct as it possible for me, what there
is believed to be the best model(s).


There are a lot of physical models describing the "start"
of the (material) universe(s) (if there was a start at all).
The most famous and still most believed one in the natural
scienctific world could be called "Big Bang" theory, as it was
mentioned here. The original Big Bang theory had its first success
1966 with the prediction of the correct helium abundance.


However, a few inconsistencies still remained based on
this simple theory. The so-called inflation-theory[1], which
is an "add-on" to the Big Bang theory was invented 1981 -
and it could explain all these measureable shortcomings of
the Big Bang theory. Among them "fluctuations in the" CMB
(cosmic microwave background. recent, beautiful picture[2]),
flatness, clustering (galaxies etc), magnetic monopoles
(Dirac monopole), ...


I am not a cosmologist, so I am not an expert. There are
a lot of problems left there, like the search for an
explanation of dark matter, dark energy, asymmetry of
matter / antimatter, etc. These may be solved by another
modification of the inflation theory and/or assuming new
particles and/or a modification of our theories in the
very-high temperature regime.


Another theory is the ekpyrotic one - it bases on vibrating
"branes", where branes are generalised "strings" - yes, those
strings, which are part of that infamous "string theory".
Brane cosmology is quite a new theory, which "effectively"
describes a Big Bang, but also a Big Crunch, maybe endlessly.
It was, maybe still somewhat is, popular, because it gives a
hypothesis of the origin of dark energy. It is not very well
understood, only qualitatively, because string theory itself
is not well understood yet, and can predict as good as nothing,
unfortunately.


So much to the scientific world. It is one approach - an
approach, which is based on predicitions. These predictions
must be measured, otherwise the theory is proven false. The
hard thing of developing new theories is to be able to make
predictions.


Cheers :)


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ave_background

Since I wasn't there, i won't be presumptuous. Genesis is as good as Hawking, IMO,
maybe better.
:cool: