151 replies to this topic

[shia4life669]

i want to know if the big bangi s and law of conservation of matter states matter can neither be created nor destroyed then how did the particle come in to existance also to include the fact the universe actualy has time meaning a begining.

[wundermonk]

It is 13.7 Billion years since the Big Bang [BB], just like how it is 2012 years since the birth of Jesus [give or take a few].

The universe has an eternal infinite past.

Time cannot have a beginning. This thread may be of interest to you.

[iDevonian]

shia4life669, on 07 April 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

i want to know if the big bang is and law of conservation of matter states matter can neither be created nor destroyed then how did the particle come in to existance also to include the fact the universe actualy has time meaning a begining.

Im not the biggest fan of the new theories that have come out in recent times in an attempt to explain how the initial matter came to be.  I prefer the response of "we dont know" and "dont ask questions about things you dont understand" which is a rule that can on occasion apply to physics.

But the big bang, ultimately isnt thought of as something coming out of nothing.  Rather its just something coming from something before it that was different.  Also "time", id say is a manmade invention, just something we use to help guage the passing of events.  Time itself doesnt really exist.

[shia4life669]

iDevonian, on 07 April 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

Im not the biggest fan of the new theories that have come out in recent times in an attempt to explain how the initial matter came to be.  I prefer the response of "we dont know" and "dont ask questions about things you dont understand" which is a rule that can on occasion apply to physics.

But the big bang, ultimately isnt thought of as something coming out of nothing.  Rather its just something coming from something before it that was different.  Also "time", id say is a manmade invention, just something we use to help guage the passing of events.  Time itself doesnt really exist.

I actually love this answer, but we have to find out what this something is....

[Pascal]

I think your problem is based on a common misconception. The big bang doesn't state the origin of the universe or where the universe actually came from, it just doesn't deal with that per se. It doesn't say where the original matter or whatever came from. It's a theory that describes the evolution and construction from the early universe as we see it today.

https://en.wikipedia...6193255#Physics

[shia4life669]

then can any one explain what is the origin of the universe

[:Sami]

shia4life669, on 08 April 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

then can any one explain what is the origin of the universe

from water, it should be the "big splash"

Edited by :Sami, 08 April 2012 - 01:52 AM.

[Pascal]

:Sami, on 08 April 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

from water, it should be the "big splash"

I cant tell if you're serious but the universe most definitely didn't start out with elements like water. It started out with much lighter elements. Plus..if theres no universe for water to exist in, how can it come from water?

http://io9.com/58813...re-the-big-bang <------------ That might serve decently

https://www.npr.org/...osmic-questions <------ this too

In some ways it doesn't really make sense to ask what was "before" though. Time and space began with the big bang. If time started with the creation of the universe, it doesn't make sense to ask what happened "before" because before is in reference to time. If time didn't exist then, there is no before. It's sort of like saying what is north of the north pole? If there was no universe for time to exist in, who is to say time existed at all?

Also saw a very good documentary on the BBC called "what happened before the big bang?". You might be able to find it on youtube.

[:Sami]

kingpomba, on 08 April 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

I cant tell if you're serious but the universe most definitely didn't start out with elements like water. It started out with much lighter elements. Plus..if theres no universe for water to exist in, how can it come from water?

http://io9.com/58813...re-the-big-bang <------------ That might serve decently

https://www.npr.org/...osmic-questions <------ this too

In some ways it doesn't really make sense to ask what was "before" though. Time and space began with the big bang. If time started with the creation of the universe, it doesn't make sense to ask what happened "before" because before is in reference to time. If time didn't exist then, there is no before. It's sort of like saying what is north of the north pole? If there was no universe for time to exist in, who is to say time existed at all?

Also saw a very good documentary on the BBC called "what happened before the big bang?". You might be able to find it on youtube.

water in the form of hot gases
H4He and Li
Many universes before ours (muti-verse )
and there's dark matter which makes up 90% of the universe.

[Quisant]

shia4life669, on 08 April 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

then can any one explain what is the origin of the universe

This is what science tells us:

The Big Bang Theory is not about the origin of the universe.  
The primary focus of the theory is the development of the universe over time.

The Universe as we know it (everything we can possibly observe) came into existence about 14B years ago, starting from a minuscule speck, and there is no evidence that there was or wasn’t anything earlier.

Nobody knows what was there before the Big Bang.
The process of inflation erased all evidence of anything that may or may not have come before; and also because our current knowledge of physics doesn’t allow accurate estimates.

The universe evolved by self-organization of matter towards more and more complex structures.  
Atoms, stars and galaxies self-assembled out of the fundamental particles produced by the Big Bang.

The Earth is tiny part of a small galaxy. The earth was not created; it is a large space rock that was pulled into the sun's orbit, and then sculpted by solar wind and meteorites into the shape it currently has.

In the process of biological evolution from bacteria-like tiny cells complex life forms arose from simpler ones. The immediate process that caused our species to be as it is, is evolution.

The rest you can probably guess.

wslm.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

Quisant, on 08 April 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

The earth was not created; it is a large space rock that was pulled into the sun's orbit, and then sculpted by solar wind and meteorites into the shape it currently has.

Actually, according to the theories I have seen, that is not true. From what I had read, the most accepted theory about how planets form is that in the stages after the Big Bang, gigantic clouds of gas were formed due to the pull of gravity, leading to a large mass of gas at the core of these clouds. Now, over time, the core got compressed more and more due to gravity, leading to high enough pressures to enable nuclear fusion, producing stars. The planets were simply smaller balls of gas which had formed away from the core but were not large enough to create the pressures required for fusion. Something like that... Maybe KingPomba or iSilurian can correct me if I am wrong.

[Pascal]

Khadim uz Zahra, on 08 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Actually, according to the theories I have seen, that is not true. From what I had read, the most accepted theory about how planets form is that in the stages after the Big Bang, gigantic clouds of gas were formed due to the pull of gravity, leading to a large mass of gas at the core of these clouds. Now, over time, the core got compressed more and more due to gravity, leading to high enough pressures to enable nuclear fusion, producing stars. The planets were simply smaller balls of gas which had formed away from the core but were not large enough to create the pressures required for fusion. Something like that... Maybe KingPomba or iSilurian can correct me if I am wrong.

Hmm, i think you're both right. I don't think he is saying the earth always is. He knows it had to come from somewhere and in another thread he mentioned its age. I think you two are just talking about different time periods.

Biologist...so...my idea is about as good as yours. The only astronomy i know is from astro*biology* i took way back in my first year. I did learn it but i also...forgot unfortunately. I might have the book around here. iSilurian is a geologist though...his idea is probably as good as mine.

Anyway, we're getting wayyyy ahead of ourselves here haha.

I guess if we were to relate this to the big bang, we could ask was the earth always going to form or was it an inherently chancey event, we could also relate that to a persons own philosophical dispositions then too

[Quisant]

Khadim uz Zahra, on 08 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Actually, according to the theories I have seen, that is not true. From what I had read, the most accepted theory about how planets form is that in the stages after the Big Bang, gigantic clouds of gas were formed due to the pull of gravity, leading to a large mass of gas at the core of these clouds. Now, over time, the core got compressed more and more due to gravity, leading to high enough pressures to enable nuclear fusion, producing stars. The planets were simply smaller balls of gas which had formed away from the core but were not large enough to create the pressures required for fusion. Something like that... Maybe KingPomba or iSilurian can correct me if I am wrong.

When I said it wasn't created, I meant 'created' in the biblical sense...

To know how it was formed, here is a good account.:
http://en.wikipedia....ry_of_the_Earth

All the best.

[iDevonian]

:Sami, on 08 April 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

water in the form of hot gases

well then it isnt water now is it?

And even still, this answer is still false. Water consists of hydrogen and oxygen.  Oxygen is one of the last gases you would want to mention about the origins of the universe.

[:Sami]

iDevonian, on 08 April 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

well then it isnt water now is it?

And even still, this answer is still false. Water consists of hydrogen and oxygen.  Oxygen is one of the last gases you would want to mention about the origins of the universe.

how do you know ? were you around?

[iDevonian]

Khadim uz Zahra, on 08 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Actually, according to the theories I have seen, that is not true. From what I had read, the most accepted theory about how planets form is that in the stages after the Big Bang, gigantic clouds of gas were formed due to the pull of gravity, leading to a large mass of gas at the core of these clouds. Now, over time, the core got compressed more and more due to gravity, leading to high enough pressures to enable nuclear fusion, producing stars. The planets were simply smaller balls of gas which had formed away from the core but were not large enough to create the pressures required for fusion. Something like that... Maybe KingPomba or iSilurian can correct me if I am wrong.

Close.  Thats not bad actually. That actually sounds decent, ill read up on this now. Im not an astronomer, so i kind of learned about things after the big gas clouds and not the big gas clouds themselves...but...i would mention supernova somewhere in there.

In the big gas clouds you have the development of stars, stars are essentially just more gases.  When stars die, they supernova, and through fusion they create the more common elements used to develop earth.  So the star essentially explodes and all of the new heavy elements spread across the universe.

Now with earth, earth, the current theory that most people accept has to do with a proto earth, which smashed into another massive rock.  And when the two collided, it simultaneously formed the moon and added more mass to the earth.  And prior to that earth was a compilation of meteorites n such. There are fancy computer models that map it all out n such.

:Sami, on 08 April 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

how do you know ? were you around?

Well, its called being a scientist.  There is...spectroscopy, which allows us to determine what elements were predominantly around in the early universe.  Oxygen was around in the early universe, but it wasnt one of the primary gases nor was it one of the first.

I wouldnt even mention it, not without mentioning hydrogen and helium for starters, because these are the primary constituents of stars.  Elements like oxygen arent formed until after fusion during a stars lifetime.

There are many things you can learn by looking at the stars, or even looking at the rocks under your feet.

Edited by iDevonian, 08 April 2012 - 10:39 AM.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

kingpomba, on 08 April 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Hmm, i think you're both right. I don't think he is saying the earth always is. He knows it had to come from somewhere and in another thread he mentioned its age. I think you two are just talking about different time periods.

Biologist...so...my idea is about as good as yours. The only astronomy i know is from astro*biology* i took way back in my first year. I did learn it but i also...forgot unfortunately. I might have the book around here. iSilurian is a geologist though...his idea is probably as good as mine.

Anyway, we're getting wayyyy ahead of ourselves here haha.

I guess if we were to relate this to the big bang, we could ask was the earth always going to form or was it an inherently chancey event, we could also relate that to a persons own philosophical dispositions then too

Quisant, on 08 April 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

When I said it wasn't created, I meant 'created' in the biblical sense...

To know how it was formed, here is a good account.:
http://en.wikipedia....ry_of_the_Earth

All the best.

Actually, I think both of you misunderstood me. I did understand that he meant that it was never created in the sense of the Bible but my point of disagreement with him was this part:

Quisant, on 08 April 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

it is a large space rock that was pulled into the sun's orbit, and then sculpted by solar wind and meteorites into the shape it currently has.

By this, he is saying that the Earth was just one big rock which happened to be caught in the gravitational field of the Sun and, then, was sculpted by solar winds etc. This is, of course, fundamentally different from what I am saying because in my explanation - which I have read through books - the Earth was part of the huge gas cloud, which formed both the Sun and the Earth, along with the other planets and asteroids. His explantion is different to what I was saying because that is saying that the Earth was an external object which happened to come near the Sun later on, after the Sun had formed whereas, according to this explanation, the huge gas cloud had the Earth forming right along the sun as it was forming. The only difference was that the ball of gas which was to become the Earth later on was much smaller than the ball of gas at the core, resulting in a star at the core and the Earth being just a planet.

iSilurian, yes, I know about supernovas. The supernova thing comes in when we try to find out why the Earth has heavier elements, such as iron, within it (if I am not wrong, the core of the Earth is made of Iron). So, how they explain this is that star which had formed these elements went supernova (a sun "exploding") and this resulted in the heavy elements being blown far away. The material ejected due to the supernova was thrown far away and, over time, was pulled together by gravity and, then, the explanation is the same as what I gave above. The clouds of gas/dust that I was talking about was this mass of material thrown away by the supernova. I just didn't mention all this because we weren't talking about how the heavy elements came on earth and, therefore, I though that this was not relevant and that the simple explanation would suffice.

About this protoearth thing, do you have any links? I have never seen that explanation before but, then again, the books I have read on astronomy are usually older ones (something like from the 90s) because that is what my school library had.

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra, 08 April 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[shia4life669]

So did the universe come out of nothing because matter just does not come out of of thin air big bang particle had to come from something and please don't tell me the theory of multiverse because that it self to me sounds to irrational and another question why is it that our day of life is a miracle according to those who say everything comes by chance because according to mathmations the chance of one of a million keep happening is impossible some thing must be the driving force causes to understand the intellgent design theory more

[iDevonian]

Khadim uz Zahra, on 08 April 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Actually, I think both of you misunderstood me. I did understand that he meant that it was never created in the sense of the Bible but my point of disagreement with him was this part:




By this, he is saying that the Earth was just one big rock which happened to be caught in the gravitational field of the Sun and, then, was sculpted by solar winds etc. This is, of course, fundamentally different from what I am saying because in my explanation - which I have read through books - the Earth was part of the huge gas cloud, which formed both the Sun and the Earth, along with the other planets and asteroids. His explantion is different to what I was saying because that is saying that the Earth was an external object which happened to come near the Sun later on, after the Sun had formed whereas, according to this explanation, the huge gas cloud had the Earth forming right along the sun as it was forming. The only difference was that the ball of gas which was to become the Earth later on was much smaller than the ball of gas at the core, resulting in a star at the core and the Earth being just a planet.

iSilurian, yes, I know about supernovas. The supernova thing comes in when we try to find out why the Earth has heavier elements, such as iron, within it (if I am not wrong, the core of the Earth is made of Iron). So, how they explain this is that star which had formed these elements went supernova (a sun "exploding") and this resulted in the heavy elements being blown far away. The material ejected due to the supernova was thrown far away and, over time, was pulled together by gravity and, then, the explanation is the same as what I gave above. The clouds of gas/dust that I was talking about was this mass of material thrown away by the supernova. I just didn't mention all this because we weren't talking about how the heavy elements came on earth and, therefore, I though that this was not relevant and that the simple explanation would suffice.

About this protoearth thing, do you have any links? I have never seen that explanation before but, then again, the books I have read on astronomy are usually older ones (something like from the 90s) because that is what my school library had.

Well, i think you are both right.  And yea, that sounds correct.  Quintesant or whatever his name is...let me scroll up and see...Quisant, i would say is also correct because you cant have a solar system without the suns gravitational pull.  And so all elements that are trapped within the suns gravitational pull must have been caught from the surrounding universe.  So the sun must have existed before the earth, is basically what im trying to say.  However, its possible that the sun isnt too much older than earth, and perhaps the sun developed within the cloud just as other stars did, and the elements spread by supernovas simply came from other stars within these clouds.

So they could form at the same time, though i wouldnt say side by side.  They could only be side by side once the sun existed and had a strong gravitational pull.

Also, everything is in motion.  The reason objects orbit the sun is because of this, and this is the way it has been since the big bang.  Even now our sun is moving at...i dont know the speed, but hundreds of thousands of miles and hour, or some rediculous speed.  You can google it.

And yea, ill find something about the moon, one sec.
http://en.wikipedia....pact_hypothesis

i see u removed the last part, but its alright, just for good purpose.

And one more thing, if everything in its fundamental form came from the big bang, then everything arguably formed all at once side by side.  Its just a matter of calling it what it is.  For example, earths constituents have been around for 13 billion years, but earth itself not untill much later in time.  So you could say the earth and sun constintuents have been around developing at the same time, but the actual label of earth, probably wouldnt apply until after the label "sun" was given to the star.

Edited by iDevonian, 08 April 2012 - 11:17 AM.

[Dhulfikar]

Quote

The universe has an eternal infinite past.

Salaam Aleikum,

I don't know how such a claim itself is logically possible? Let me explain why;

In this Reality we observe objects X that are depented on others objects and all of them have attributes of Y. To form new objects, first we must accepts that it is imposibble to form new object out of nothing in Spacetime, so actually they must form out of something. Lets assume that we have objects 1,2,3,4...n, and that object x forms y, so for example object 3 form a new object 4 and object 3 have an attributes that object 4 can come to existence. So object 4 depends on its previous Object who already must exist (cause and effect).

Let say that because Objects depends on previous objects, and that out of nothing can't come something, thus it's means that there must be always an object that exist. Thus we say that there is no actual start point and nor will there will be actual end point. In another words i can actually say "The universe has an eternal infinite past." The problem here is this: To form new object X, actually it takes infinity objects to form the new object X.

Another interesting viewpoint is following: Let assume that we have an infinite start points (but not actual start point). And every start point follow the evolution of Big Bang. Now we can actually say that; from the start point we have an finite objects, thus to come to object 1, it takes an finite amount of events to come to first object. Still the problem occurs, because of infinite start points, it takes infinite previous start point to come to our start points.

For me the answer is actually very simple. An non-dependial thing that does not include in objects 1,2,3,4...n can actually make sense in this whole system.

Edited by Dhulfikar, 08 April 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[iDevonian]

shia4life669, on 08 April 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

So did the universe come out of nothing because matter just does not come out of of thin air big bang particle had to come from something and please don't tell me the theory of multiverse because that it self to me sounds to irrational and another question why is it that our day of life is a miracle according to those who say everything comes by chance because according to mathmations the chance of one of a million keep happening is impossible some thing must be the driving force causes to understand the intellgent design theory more

The big bang didnt come out of nothing.

And i like that last part...if everything is by chance, then how in one in a million did earth come to be?

Well, do you know how many planets are out there?  A lot more than a million.  So by your 1 in 1 million ratio, id say chance is in our favor haha.  Know what I mean?

If there is 1/1000000 chance that earth came about in the way that it did.  But you have 20000000000000000000000000000000000000 planets, then id think odds are many earths exist, not just ours.  Because even with a 1 in 1 million chance, there would still be billions of planet earths forming at "random".

And actually, there are many earth like planets out there.  Many are found every year.

The same applies if you are talking about planets suitable for life, and the same applies again if you ask the question of if life exists on other planets.

Even when it comes to asking questions about life itself, if you have a near infinite number of chances, then even with a near impossible probability, you still are likely to have success.  And thats why when I look at the stars, i dont think "oh 1 in 1 million chance we are here", i think..."wow, every single star out there is an opportunity".

Edited by iDevonian, 08 April 2012 - 11:28 AM.

[shia4life669]

<p>

iDevonian, on 08 April 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

<br />
The big bang didnt come out of nothing.<br />
<br />
And i like that last part...if everything is by chance, then how in one in a million did earth come to be?<br />
<br />
Well, do you know how many planets are out there?&nbsp;&nbsp;A lot more than a million.&nbsp;&nbsp;So by your 1 in 1 million ratio, id say chance is in our favor <img alt="" class="bbc_emoticon" src="http://www.shiachat....efault/wink.png" /> haha.&nbsp;&nbsp;Know what I mean?<br />
<br />
If there is 1/1000000 chance that earth came about in the way that it did.&nbsp;&nbsp;But you have 20000000000000000000000000000000000000 planets, then id think odds are many earths exist, not just ours.&nbsp;&nbsp;Because even with a 1 in 1 million chance, there would still be billions of planet earths forming at &quot;random&quot;.<br />
<br />
And actually, there are many earth like planets out there.&nbsp;&nbsp;Many are found every year.<br />
<br />
The same applies if you are talking about planets suitable for life, and the same applies again if you ask the question of if life exists on other planets.<br />
<br />
Even when it comes to asking questions about life itself, if you have a near infinite number of chances, then even with a near impossible probability, you still are likely to have success.&nbsp;&nbsp;And thats why when I look at the stars, i dont think &quot;oh 1 in 1 million chance we are here&quot;, i think...&quot;wow, every single star out there is an opportunity&quot;.<br />

seems logical but alot you have take into consideration you need to have the perfect sun the perfect distance the the perfect tilt the perfect amount of atmospheres the perfect amount of land for technology to survive and we are still survivng the chance of us being hit by a meteor come on There are 26 known asteroids larger than 200 km across. We probably know 99% of the asteroids larger than 100 km across. We've cataloged about half of the asteroids in the 10 km to 100 km size range. Scientists still don't know much about the smaller ones. It's thought there may be as many as a million 1 km sized asteroids may exist. this seems irational to take this in with out thinking that their must be something that is makeing this all possible i am not saying god of the geneisus but something that is beyond this world a supreme being more like.

[ShiaPoet]

Salam

Question: What does Islam have to say regarding the Big Bang theory?

Answer:    "Then He (Allah) turned to the Heaven when it was smoke..." (41:11) - Holy Qur'an

                 " Don't the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before we separated them?
               And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (21:30) - Holy Qur'an

[iDevonian]

shia4life669, on 08 April 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

<p> seems logical but alot you have take into consideration you need to have the perfect sun the perfect distance the the perfect tilt the perfect amount of atmospheres the perfect amount of land for technology to survive and we are still survivng the chance of us being hit by a meteor come on There are 26 known asteroids larger than 200 km across. We probably know 99% of the asteroids larger than 100 km across. We've cataloged about half of the asteroids in the 10 km to 100 km size range. Scientists still don't know much about the smaller ones. It's thought there may be as many as a million 1 km sized asteroids may exist. this seems irational to take this in with out thinking that their must be something that is makeing this all possible i am not saying god of the geneisus but something that is beyond this world a supreme being more like.

The perfect sun?  Oh you mean the one that is going to explode in the future and will kill us all? (not to mention sunburn and the burning of your eyes when u look at it.)   The perfect tilt?  Oh, so you do know about the milankovitch cycles that will freeze us all to death one day? The perfect atmosphere that has lead to massive extinctions of life in the past? The perfect land for technology?  Oh you mean the fraction of a percent of land on the planet that wont kill us? And we are still surviving the chance of a meteorite hitting us?  Since when? We had a meteorite come between us and the moon just a few years ago, and we have another one coming even closer in the next few years. And obviously theyve killed a great deal of life in the past considering all the dinosaurs are dead now.

I dont know what universe you live in , u think we are somehow "safe" on this "perfect" planet.  Do you know just how many living things have been killed on this planet in the past?  How many extinctions there have been?  There is nothing "perfect" about anything.  Thats a very subjective term.

Ya, thats very subjective.  And you know, majority of planets out here arent even suitable for life. Perfect is all in the eyes of the beholder. And for every beautiful sunset, there is a poisonous spider crawling in your shoe.

Edited by iDevonian, 08 April 2012 - 07:56 PM.