Big Bang theory

[amshion]

The big bang theory is very vague, it doesn't explain how the matter was created to cause the big bang you would need energy but where did the energy come from. lets say this universe is a simulation, the universe that created our universe how was that universe created or is their a god but what created the god? in science matter cant be created by nothing it requires energy. 

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, amshion said:

The big bang theory is very vague

Let me be the first to disagree.

Quote

The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature,^[4] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[amshion]

where did it come from then?

what i mean to say is where did " initial state of high density and temperature" come from?

Not saying its wrong but it looks incomplete its vague on certain points which I'm sure can be explained in the future

[SergUpstart]

1 hour ago, amshion said:

The big bang theory is very vague, it doesn't explain how the matter was created to cause the big bang you would need energy but where did the energy come from. lets say this universe is a simulation, the universe that created our universe how was that universe created or is their a god but what created the god? in science matter cant be created by nothing it requires energy. 

Matter and energy arise and disappear constantly in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So the origin of the universe is most likely a quantum effect. God is not needed for this.

[joigus]

6 hours ago, amshion said:

to cause the big bang you would need energy but where did the energy come from.

Energy is only conserved in GR only when your metric doesn't depend on time or, more technically, when you have a timelike Killing field that's a symmetry of your metric. So no, energy is not conserved in general relativity. This is particularly notorious in cosmological models. Think about it, we only have a sensible conserved energy when the "physical recipes" for how systems evolve do not depend on time. The big bang is a notorious exception.

Inflationary models are a parametrisation of this behaviour that we wouldn't expect in this day and age of the universe.

I hope that helps.

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, amshion said:

which I'm sure can be explained in the future

The god of the gaps argument in reverse...

[zapatos]

10 hours ago, amshion said:

it doesn't explain how the matter was created to cause the big bang

That is correct. But then again, it was not meant to. It is not "incomplete and vague" in these areas, it is simply not within its scope. Saying is is incomplete and vague in these areas is like saying my sourdough bread recipe is incomplete and vague because it does not explain how wheat is grown.

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, amshion said:

Not saying its wrong but it looks incomplete its vague on certain points which I'm sure can be explained in the future

In my experience, people who say this are looking for ways not to have to study it. Or they don't understand the maths of the LCDM model the theory is based on, and assume BBT is equally confusing, so why bother to dig deeply into it? 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, amshion said:

The big bang theory is very vague, it doesn't explain how the matter was created to cause the big bang you would need energy but where did the energy come from

This lies outside of the scope of the theory.

[mistermack]

The big bang theory is vague and incomplete, if you expect it to clear up the riddle of infinity. Because that's what you come up against in the ultimate question of the origin of everything. Every time you explain something, you raise more questions. And there is no apparent way that that process could ever stop. You can always ask, "and why did that happen?" at any stage, ad infinitum.

And shoving a god in the gap solves nothing. The question just becomes "and where did he/she/it come from?" and so on. 

So I don't think that current opinion is pretending that the BBT explains everything. That's an infinitely bigger question.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The big bang theory is vague and incomplete, if you expect it to clear up the riddle of infinity. Because that's what you come up against in the ultimate question of the origin of everything.

The zapatos sourdough bread recipe is similarly vague and incomplete, if you expect it to clear up the riddle of how wheat is grown. IOW, BBT says absolutely, positively, adamantly, boisterously, purposely NOTHING about "the origin of everything". The theory stops where our knowledge does, just before your "riddle of infinity" is introduced.

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And shoving a god in the gap solves nothing. The question just becomes "and where did he/she/it come from?" and so on. 

God-of-the-gaps (if that's the way you meant it) isn't a "turtles all the way down" problem, really. GotG shows why it's not a good idea to rely on supernatural explanations when you don't know something, since they keep getting squeezed out when we figure out what's happening naturally. If history continues to repeat, natural explanations will be all there is.

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So I don't think that current opinion is pretending that the BBT explains everything. That's an infinitely bigger question.

The BBT describes the expansion and evolution of the universe from a very hot, very dense state to what we see now. It doesn't describe the beginning of everything. Every theory has a very finite area of application. None of them were ever meant to be used in every situation. They each represent our best current explanation for various phenomena, based on mathematical models that work extremely well when specifically applied.

I think a lot of the infinitely bigger questions are more philosophical than scientific.

 

[mistermack]

Phi, you're kicking a straw man.  You seem to be replying to the opposite of what I posted. Maybe you should read it again. 

[beecee]

14 hours ago, amshion said:

The big bang theory is very vague, it doesn't explain how the matter was created to cause the big bang you would need energy but where did the energy come from. lets say this universe is a simulation, the universe that created our universe how was that universe created or is their a god but what created the god? in science matter cant be created by nothing it requires energy. 

The BBT, as others have said,  is a theory of the evolution of the universe/space/time from a hot dense state at T+10-43 seconds. Before that we can only speculate. But there is reasonable scientifically based speculation. The best of those imo involves the BB "erupting" from a quantum foam. At that instant the four known forces were united into one  superforce. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforce 

As the universe expanded and temperatures and pressures started to drop, the superforce started to decouple, gravity being the first. This created phase transitions and false vacuums, the excesses of energy went into creating our very first fundamental particles, via E=Mc2. From there it was plain sailing to the stages that we see today.

This reasonable speculation is best looked at with taking the quantum foam as existing for eternity, or in fact, the quantum foam, being actually nothing...or at least as close to nothing that can exist. Obviously that means redefining nothing. See "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

This reasonable speculation is best looked at with taking the quantum foam as existing for eternity, or in fact, the quantum foam, being actually nothing...or at least as close to nothing that can exist. Obviously that means redefining nothing. See "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

Hence my point about infinity. Eternity, an infinity of time. The concept of "nothing" also involves infinity. An infinite lack of anything. And something from nothing is an infinite increase. So if you can't make sense of an actual infinity, then you will never make sense of the existence of what we experience.

[Phi for All]

53 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Phi, you're kicking a straw man.  You seem to be replying to the opposite of what I posted. Maybe you should read it again. 

If I were offering an alternative argument, perhaps. What I was doing instead was applying more rigor in the terms being used. 

BBT is NOT vague and incomplete because of infinities and "the origin of everything". Again, not applicable here.

A "god in the gaps" is NOT about having to show where the god's creators came from. But perhaps you didn't mean to use a phrase so similar to "god OF the gaps", and I'm being picky.

And I thought you misrepresented "current opinion" as well, but again that could be the difference between science and philosophy. My comments were to clarify in an attempt to keep more misunderstanding from forming on the part of the OP, not as an alternative argument.

[mistermack]

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

BBT is NOT vague and incomplete because of infinities and "the origin of everything". Again, not applicable here.

Again, you're replying to stuff I didn't write. I wrote " The big bang theory is vague and incomplete, if you expect it to clear up the riddle of infinity."   I thought that was pretty clear. The OP is expecting the BBT to explain more than is reasonable, or than is claimed.

[exchemist]

16 hours ago, amshion said:

where did it come from then?

what i mean to say is where did " initial state of high density and temperature" come from?

Not saying its wrong but it looks incomplete its vague on certain points which I'm sure can be explained in the future

I don't think vague is the right word. There are questions the theory does not answer, but that is something different.

Like any theory in science, the big bang theory is rooted in observation and testable by observation. It cannot answer questions for which no observations are available. Science is always limited by that. In science, you can't just make stuff up. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Again, you're replying to stuff I didn't write

No, he is replying to stuff you did write. I would have said the same thing. The BBT is not vague and incomplete whether you are expecting it to clear up the riddle of infinity or not. amshion's understanding of the BBT is what is vague in incomplete. The BBT is just fine, thank you very much.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Again, you're replying to stuff I didn't write. I wrote " The big bang theory is vague and incomplete, if you expect it to clear up the riddle of infinity."   I thought that was pretty clear. The OP is expecting the BBT to explain more than is reasonable, or than is claimed.

Perhaps you didn't read zapatos' reply ahead of yours, where he shows this comparison is like claiming his sourdough recipe is vague and incomplete if you apply it where it doesn't belong. Your reply seemed to cast the BBT in doubt coming after his reply.

[mistermack]

53 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The BBT is not vague and incomplete

So the BBT is complete?   Really ?? 

Wikipedia writes :   " What follows are a list of the mysterious aspects of the Big Bang theory still under intense investigation by cosmologists and astrophysicists. " 

It then discusses Baryon Asymmetry, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Horizon Proble, Magnetic Monopoles etc, etc etc. 

Which all goes to suggest that it might not be quite as complete as you claim. 

 

[Markus Hanke]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

The BBT, as others have said,  is a theory of the evolution of the universe/space/time from a hot dense state at T+10-43 seconds.

Actually, it’s domain only starts at 10^(-32)s, which is the end of the inflationary epoch. What happened before is speculative at best, and, once you get to the Planck epoch, simply unknown.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So the BBT is complete?   Really ?? 

Wikipedia writes :   " What follows are a list of the mysterious aspects of the Big Bang theory still under intense investigation by cosmologists and astrophysicists. " 

It then discusses Baryon Asymmetry, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Horizon Proble, Magnetic Monopoles etc, etc etc. 

Which all goes to suggest that it might not be quite as complete as you claim. 

 

Don't move the goalposts. It is not vague and incorrect WRT HOW MATTER CAME ABOUT. Jeez. Quit arguing about nothing and move on already.

[beecee]

51 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Actually, it’s domain only starts at 10^(-32)s, which is the end of the inflationary epoch. What happened before is speculative at best, and, once you get to the Planck epoch, simply unknown.

Not arguing Marcus, and perhaps I have mistunderstood.......What I think I do understand well, is that the further we go back, approaching that Planck/quantum era, the less certain we can be...but again, to be able to give reasonable descriptions at that time frame is pretty damn incredible! 

https://web.njit.edu/~gary/202/Lecture26.html

"The amazing fact is that we can trace the Big Bang back to its earliest moments, at least as far back as 10-10 s, and possibly as far back as 10-43 s!  This is an incredibly short time, and we can truthfully say that we can trace the evolution of the universe back to the first instant of creation.  In so doing, we are probing not just the very earliest universe, but also the highest energy particle physics, so that particle physicists and astronomers are working on two aspects of the same puzzle"

Eras of the Big Bang

The eras of the universe, from the time of the Big Bang, are listed below.  We will discuss each in turn.

Planck Era     (All four known forces are unified.)

GUT (Grand Unified Theory) Era    (Gravity "freezes out" and becomes distinct.)

Electroweak Era    (The nuclear strong force "freezes out" and becomes distinct.)

Particle Era    (particles begin to form)

Era of Nucleosynthesis    (nuclear fusion creates Helium, and tiny amount of heavier elements)

Era of Nuclei   (electrons are not yet bound to nuclei)

Era of Atoms   (electrons recombine to form neutral atoms, and the first stars are born)

Era of Galaxies   (Galaxies begin to form, leading up to the present)

The earliest eras were very short lasting, and very high energy.  The first few eras are when the laws of physics were considerably different than they are know, but we can still predict some of the behavior.  Let's look at each era in more detail:

Planck Era

The Planck Era is prior to 10-43 s after the Big Bang, when we believe that the four basic forces of nature, 1) gravity, 2) nuclear strong force, 3) nuclear weak force, and 4) electromagnetic force were combined into a single "super" force.  The idea is somewhat like the different phases of water (ice, liquid, and vapor), which are all aspects of the same thing.  You can imagine that at certain pressure and temperature there might be conditions in which these three phases of water become a single phase, no longer distinct.  Physicists believe that we will eventually find a theory that succeeds in combining all four of these fundamental forces, but at present there is no such theory.  (We have names for such a theory, however: supersymmetry, superstrings, or supergravity.)  So we really do not know what the universe was like in the Planck Era.  Some superstring theories call for spacetime to have 11 dimensions during this time.

GUT Era

The GUT Era is when three of the four fundamental forces are combined, but gravity has become distinct.  There are a class of theories called Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) that attempt to describe all forces except gravity in a single framework.  The leading type are so-called string theories, and some are partially successful, but there are further details to be worked out.  Theorists would say that in the GUT Era the gravity force "froze out" of the universe.  The GUT Era lasted from 10-43 s to 10-38 s.  Near the end of this era, grand unified theories predict that the universe cooled to the point that the nuclear strong force began to freeze out, leaving three fundamental forces: gravity, the strong force, and the still combined electroweak force.  This "phase transition" released a huge amount of energy, causing space to undergo a rapid inflation.  In a mere 10-36 s, pieces of our universe the size of an atomic nucleus might have grown to the size of our solar system.  We will later discuss observations of the universe that seem to require such extreme inflation.  Note that this inflation is very very large compared to the speed of light, but again, space itself is what is expanding, so it does not have to obey the speed limit of the speed of light."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[MigL]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Don't move the goalposts. It is not vague and incorrect WRT HOW MATTER CAME ABOUT. Jeez.

The original 'goalposts' were 'vague and incomplete', disregarding the rubbish about infinity.
I'm not sure as to the meaning of vague in this context, but incomplete certainly applies.
Big Bang Theory is based on GR, which we know to be incomplete, as it doesn't apply to all circumstances.
And 'how matter came about', at the expense of anti-matter, is certainly a gaping hole in the theory, along with some of the other unknowns mentioned by Mistermack.

Suggesting Big Bang Theory is complete ( or that any model can be complete ) implies a lack of understanding of the theory

Just saying ...

[Phi for All]

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

Big Bang Theory is based on GR, which we know to be incomplete, as it doesn't apply to all circumstances.

And that's the point being made here, that in circumstances where the BBT is applicable, it's not vague and incomplete, which is what mistermack's reply insinuated. I may be splitting hairs here, or I may have been confused with the infinity claims, but I wanted the OP to understand that BBT has nothing to do with "the origin of everything", nor is it considered to be a theory of everything.