I don't really get Big Bang

[Raymond Lin]

Can someone explain...

The First Law of Thermodynamics dictates that Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.

Isn't the Big Bang the complete opposite? Nothing, then massive energy, and then everything in the universe.

Surely if you are a Physicist, and accept the Laws of Thermodynamics, then the Big Bang is about as believable as God?

(Yes I know Big Bang is only a theory)

 

[Raymond Lin]

As far as current understanding goes, all the energy required was present in the singularity, the big bang didn't create anything, the "ball" of energy just "exploded" outwards.

Then where did the energy from the singularity comes from...

 

[Raymond Lin]

What's not to get regards to energy ? The energy was always there, the big bang is just what caused it to expand into the known universe

How did the energy get there?

 

[Raymond Lin]

You are thinking very much like a human, as in - all things have a start and end point because all things you know and have been told about have a start and end point. But we can theorise that there are things outside our concept of time that just have always existed.

It could be that a space monster hopped over to this dimension and farted, which is the big bang, and then left.

 

[Raymond Lin]

It was just there, you're asking a question that is impossible by current science to answer, this borders on philosophy and really deep quantum mechanics where things really do seem like magic

My question to you is, why does it need to "get there" ? Why is it not possible to consider it was just there, outside of time & space ?

If you accept that then you are breaking the 1st law? Can you have both?

 

[Raymond Lin]

Why is it breaking the 1st law ? The energy was always there, no energy has been created or destroyed, the same energy has merely changed state from just being "there" to expanding

That.

1st law states that Energy can't be "just there"...it came from somewhere.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The 1st law created with limited human knowledge and understanding? Law's can be changed?

Sure, 100% it can, will need evidence though.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Why can't it be there ?

To counter your argument though, the 1st law applies to this universe, if the universe didn't exist until the expansion began, then technically there was no 1st law prior to expansion

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that it can’t just be there. It literally says it?

Sure it can be, but then you have to ignore the law of thermodynamics?

which was my point in the OP.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You are forgetting that our universe did not exist before the big bang, therefore all known laws physics of any kind in our universe did not apply. The laws pf physics in any other universe or space outside of it may well be very different where something can happen from "nothing".

Which goes back to my original point, "very different", accepting something outside the laws of our universe, it's akin to believing god is it not? (and I didn't forget)

 

[Raymond Lin]

It's not - we are discovering new physics all the time. Quantum physics was outside the laws of our universe effectively, but it describes the universe in areas were previous standard physics didn't work. It's worth noting that our understanding of physics is entirely based on the properties of the universe of itself, so they only work within it. Things like the speed of light being a fixed constant. Outside our universe that might not be the case, or indeed light might not even exist at all.

Yes, we are discovering new things all the time, but the acceptance of "new", is allowance of acceptance of something that breaks our current understanding of laws of physics, which is akin to believing in god. If god is an umbrella term that covers something that cannot be currently explained. Like in medieval times would think a lighter is witchcraft.

 

[Raymond Lin]

No, not really. We don't use god to describe something we don't understand in science.

So what is before Big Bang?

 

[Raymond Lin]

We don't know?

Then how is it different to say God or make any kind of theory?

It is ALL theory, it goes to my point that thinking a lighter is witchcraft if you don't know how it works.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Yes, but we don't just throw our arms up and say god did it. Everything about what was before the big bang is speculative, because we have zero observations of it.

I am not saying God exists, I am saying, believing something that can't be proven and breaks our laws of physics is believing the existence of something else, which if you think about it...breaking the laws of physics, the foundation of science, it is akin to believing in god.

Capiche?

 

[Raymond Lin]

The difference though between god vs science is that all aspects of science can be calculated one way or other. If it cannot be observed directly, then it can be observed indirectly. Example? Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

We know they exist because of the affect they have on everything in the universe and all the empty space occupied. If indirectly hen formulas and equations in maths theorise their existence and up until recently, gravity waves were an example of this which scientists have now proven with observations and advances in astronomy tech.

The problem with aligning existence of god when comparing with a "scientific theory" is that it is an incompatible comparison. One relies on faith, the other does not for the very reasons mentioned above. The fact is that scientific theories will always be proven or disproven. There is no faith, no inbetween. If disproven then previous theoretical models will be revised and looked at again with new information as technology improves every few years.

It's not god vs science.

I can call it science, call it witchcraft, call it Feek's fart after a Sunday Lunch. It doesn't matter what I call it, it's something that breaks your fundamentals of understanding. That is the point, the point that to accept Big Bang as a legit concept, you have to change the (existing) laws of what you believe in as a physicist?

You are essentially arguing over a label.

Capiche?

 

[Raymond Lin]

It really isn't... It's very simple really but is only easy to understand if you keep an open and logical mind to how science approaches all things that you call unknowns.

It is. It's something we don't understand. We agree there is something, does it matter what you label it?

It does to you, it doesn't to me.

Let's call it "something", that's okay, call it god....god forbid!

I don't even believe in god, for god's sake. It merely is a placeholder name until someone figures it out and we name it after him/her probably.

 

[Raymond Lin]

By extension using this approach gravity was God until Newton came along. I get the point, in lieu of proof people will default to attributing cause and therefore effect to a deity. It doesn't mean there is a God, it's just convenient until a big enough brain comes along.

Somebody gets it.

 

[Raymond Lin]

God has a specific definition in the context you've been talking about earlier. though, there has never been any evidence of any god of any kind in all of recorded history. You could call it god before the big bang, but you would logically be wrong to do so because you would be making the claim on supposed faith alone whereas scientific theories are at least based on some form of logical calculation.or model (such as multiverse theory).

You've been trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill for some reason though when it really is just a scientific unknown for now. One day an intelligent species out there in one universe or other will be advanced enough to be able to observe what happens at the start and/or end of a universe.

Call it whatever you want, I don't care. You seem do care when i call it god.

Who is making the mountain?

Are you offended because i call it god, do you believe in god? Is that why you are offended? Because you sound like you are...I am sorry.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Yeah, but that’s not how science works.

There’s always been times when known physics couldn’t explain things. It didn’t mean scientists threw up their hands and said that’s god and left it at that!

I didn't say god did it, I said "it's akin to believing in god", because you are believing in something else that you spent your entire career in, i.e. physics and the Laws of Physics, now it's out the window.

There is a difference.

Even if i say God is the reason as a name placeholder...do you care? why do you care what I label it? Do you really care for the label? Really? it's just a name.

If you don't care what i label it, then what has been the last few posts about?

 

[Raymond Lin]

Believing in unexplainable things is not comparable to believing in a deity at all. There is no sense in that comparison. Just because the birth of the universe is currently unexplainable, doesn't mean an intelligent being is behind it. This is what people are saying when they deduce that 'well, it must be God then.' and that is what atheists take issue with.

unexplainable = God? It just...no. No.

Well, seeing we can't prove what is before Big Bang and we can't prove god...it's on the same level of unknown IMO. It might be a race out there capable of our imagination of God level of power. Or can we disprove that possiblity too?

It's a label.

Something happened, nobody would argue that.
God happened, people get their knickers in a twist.

Bearing in mind i don't even believe in god.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Lol! "It might be an intelligent devine entity you happen to believe doesn't exist. But it might be...because you can't prove it".

And you take issue with the people you say that to? Please.


Not at all.

There may be a race out there with technology so advance that goes between dimension to create universes and they speaks all the languages...and when we meet them, they call themselves the race of god.

Then your mind will be blown huh? lol