Talk:Big Bang/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Confused about galaxy formation

I'm taking another guess. Current version (without links, sorry):

"The details of the distribution of galaxies and quasars both constrain and confirm current theory. The finite age of the universe at earlier times means that galaxy evolution is closely tied to cosmology. The types and distribution of galaxies appear to change markedly over time, evolving by means of the Boltzmann Equation. Observations reveal a time-dependent relationship of the galaxy and quasar distributions, star formation histories, and the type and size of the largest-scale structures in the universe (superclusters). These observations are in statistical agreement with simulations. They are well explained by the Big Bang theory and help constrain model parameters."

My suggestion:

"The details of the distribution of galaxies and quasars both constrain and confirm current theory. The changing conditions in the Big Bang universe mean that galaxy evolution is different at different epochs. (In contrast, the growth and death of organisms in a stable ecology are overall the same in different years.) In fact, the types and the distribution of galaxies appear to change markedly over time, evolving by means of the Boltzmann Equation. Observations reveal a time-dependent relationship among the galaxy and quasar distributions, star formation histories, and the type and size of the largest-scale structures in the universe (superclusters). These observations are in statistical agreement with Big Bang simulations and help constrain model parameters." —JerryFriedman 16:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not entirely happy with this, because it talks about galaxy evolution. It makes it sound like a population of galaxies was around in the primordial universe, and has merely changed in character since then, when in fact the galaxies formed from an extraordinarily homogeneous background. Also, I'd take out the reference to the Boltzmann equation, which doesn't add anything. How about:

The details of the distribution of galaxies and quasars provides strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the big bang, and larger structures have been forming since then, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Galaxy populations have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies observed in the early universe appear very different from nearby galaxies. Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently apear markedly different from galaxies formed shortly after the big bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions, and larger structures are helping to complete details of the big bang theory, and are in good agreement with simulations of the formation of structure in the universe. --Joke137 19:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand it and I'm about to add it, with a minor change or two. —JerryFriedman 16:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Confused about 10^-33 s.

While I'm at it, does anyone understand the time mentioned in this sentence? "There is no compelling physical model for the first 10^-33 seconds of the universe." What happened at 10^-33 seconds? Is there any chance that's a typo for 10^-43 seconds, roughly the Planck time? —JerryFriedman 16:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's the GUT time, which corresponds to an energy scale of around 10¹⁴ GeV (actually, the GUT scale is more like 10¹⁶ GeV, but who's counting?), roughly the scale of inflation and perhaps baryogenesis, when our understanding of the particle physics gets hazy. You could probably push things back to 10^-37 seconds, but I think it would be wrong to choose the Planck time. --Joke137 18:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vesto Slipher

Why is Vesto Slipher not mentioned in this article? --Mmcarvalho 18:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He should be -- in the history section. Why don't you try to work him in? Joshuaschroeder 16:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I did instead. From what I found on the Web, I'm assuming that the statement that Hubble found the recession speeds of "spiral nebulae" in 1913 was simply wrong. —JerryFriedman 19:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Slightly confused about dark energy (but who isn't?)

Current version:

"In the 1990s, detailed measurements of the mass density of the universe revealed a value that was 30% that of the critical density. For the universe to be flat, as is indicated by measurements of the cosmic microwave background, this would have meant that fully 70% of the energy density of the universe was left unaccounted for. Measurements of Type Ia supernovae reveal that the universe is undergoing a non-linear acceleration of the Hubble Law expansion of the universe. General relativity requires that this additional 70% be made up by an energy component with large negative pressure."

My suggestion:

In the 1990s, detailed measurements of the mass density of the universe revealed a value that was 30% that of the critical density. Since the universe is flat, as is indicated by measurements of the cosmic microwave background, fully 70% of the energy density of the universe was left unaccounted for. The mystery was parametrized further by independent measurements of Type Ia supernovae which revealed that the universe is undergoing a non-linear acceleration of the Hubble Law expansion of the universe. To explain this acceleration, general relativity requires that much of the universe consist of an energy component with large negative pressure. This "dark energy" is now thought to make up the missing 70%."

—JerryFriedman 18:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Not bad. I tweaked it slightly to avoid the "From another quarter" awkward wording. Joshuaschroeder 19:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I can't understand "The mystery was parametrized further". Since I gather my version didn't introduce any mistakes, I'm going to put it into the article with yet another beginning of that sentence, and you (or anyone) can improve that if necessary. —JerryFriedman 22:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Philosophical and religious references

It would be totally cool to have some more, within reason. Just a thought. —JerryFriedman 17:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• • The word "anthropomorphic" (meaning formed like man) in "Some students of Kabbalah, deism and other non-anthropomorphic faiths..." is not appropriate here. Does the writer mean anthropocentric?**

Look in the dictionary. An anthropomorphic faith is one that ascribes "a human form and attributes to the Deity." --Joke137 21:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"See also" section is redundant...

...and should thus be removed. Topics already covered in text clearly need not be repeated, and related topics are handled by the category system. Fredrik | talk 01:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I copied the above statement out of the talk page archive as I fully agree and would like to start action. Does anybody see any link, which is nit in the prose, but so central, that it should be preserved. --Pjacobi 15:11, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

I agree with this, so I took it out since nobody bothered to disagree. The links in the see also section were seemingly chosen at random, and most of them were already in the text somewhere. --Joke137 17:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Dark matter and energy

I moved the "Dark Energy" subsection after "Globular Cluster Age" because it led so nicely into the next section, but now I see that it also followed "Dark Matter" nicely. So I'll let others decide whether to move it back.

Also, each "standard problem" is bolded (horizon problem, flatness problem, etc. I don't think this adds anything to most of the subsections—but it would make me smile to see dark matter and dark energy in dark type. Too frivolous? —JerryFriedman 19:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

CMB

I really don't understand the reference to symmetry breaking in the CMB section. The radiation was in equilibrium from the end of baryogenesis to photon decoupling, wasn't it? --Joke137 01:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It is in the sense of symmetry breaking being a feature of traveling out of thermal equilibrium... but I can see that it isn't the most standard use of the term. Rewording it is fine. Joshuaschroeder 04:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

'A' or 'The' Theory?

Joshuaschroeder: While the big bang is the best theory at explaining the beginning of the universe, shouldn't we represent it as "a" theory, not "the" theory? As is noted in Wikipedia's scientific POV guide, Wikipedia should include all scientific views. However, we can still characterize the theory as the most widely accepted. —Joe Jarvis 02:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

If you read the opening sentence it clearly states that the "Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe". No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that. The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. The Big Bang is a paradigmatic formalism in cosmology, similar to the way in which Maxwell's Equations as "the set of four equations, attributed to James Clerk Maxwell, that describe the behavior of both the electric and magnetic fields, as well as their interactions with matter". Even though there are those people who think some parts of Maxwell's Equations are wrong (magnetic monopoles for example, may exist), we still use the definitive article because that is the way science works. You can peruse the science pages here on wikipedia for myriad more examples. True scientific theories, by definition, don't lend themselves to concessions of plurality because there can be only one theory available that describes the observations. In the case of the Big Bang, it (and nothing else) is the one theory available that describes the observations. This has nothing to do with being "neutral", it has to do with reporting the facts about a scientific theory and its applicability to the natural universe. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken. There are plenty of theories that purport to describe the "early development and shape of the universe" (see Roman, Hindu, or Maori creation myths for example), and even if there were none, that doesn't mean there can't be any more in the future, so this is definitely a theory.

The Big Bang is not comparable to Maxwell's equations in this regard. The latter deal with these so-called "electric and magnetic fields", which are a convenient mathematical construct that explains observed phenomena. The Big Bang deals with the universe itself. --Doradus 19:18, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified to In physical cosmology, so the first objection is void. The second objection is a mis-interpretation, how physics is done. The Big Band Theory, as well as Maxwell's equations, is concerned about observable phenomena. --Pjacobi 19:24, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Ok, but, it's still a simple matter: the Big Bang theory claims the universe started with a large explosion at some finite time in the past. There are alternative explanations for the "early development and shape of the universe". Ergo, the Big Bang is not the theory, regardless of how much evidence that we have, just like "round earth" theory is a theory of the shape of the Earth, no matter how convinced you are personally that it is the correct theory.

Joshuaschroeder said "No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that." Even if true, this doesn't make it the theory; it only makes it the first such theory. If I claims that the diamond crystals in Pluto's core are arranged in a happy face shape, I don't get to claim that the Diamond Happy Face theory is the theory of the arrangement of diamonds in Pluto's core, just because nobody else has come up with a competing theory yet.

Besides which, even if you believe that it is the theory, then saying a theory is still correct, and I think it's reasonable for an encyclopedia to take the less contentions route. --Doradus 19:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Accepted: The Big Bang theory is not the only theory describing the history of the universe. Many others have been proposed, believed, discredited, or left open to debate. Perhaps there are more to come. That does not matter. As this article is written today, it does not claim to be the only theory. It says (abbreviated) that the Big Bang is the theory that the universe started as an "explosion" of space. That is correct. It is the only theory that postulates that origin. (Or rather, it subsumes all such theories.) Chris Mid 00:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Correction

The big bang was not an explosion as we are used to think of it. It was not a normal explosion in space, it was an explosion of space. When the universe inflated, new space was created (see image. [[1]]. That's the way it was according to general relativity. See also the balloon analogy and dark energy.

Take note that the big-bang model is based on two assumptions. The first is that Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity correctly describes the gravitational interaction of all matter. The second assumption, called the cosmological principle, states that an observer's view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. This principle applies only to the large-scale properties of the universe, but it does imply that the universe has no edge, so that the big-bang origin occurred not at a particular point in space but rather throughout space at the same time. These two assumptions make it possible to calculate the history of the cosmos after a certain epoch called the Planck time. Scientists have yet to determine what prevailed before Planck time. Joshuaschroeder 16:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And those who think this is philosophy, what do you think the big bang is other than philosophy? What is general relativity if not philosophy? -- Orionix 14:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Big Bang need not be described as an "explosion" at all. That's a holdover and a misnomer. Joshuaschroeder 16:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem with the "explosion" concept is that the less sophisticated reader tends to assume that an explosion exists in a small space within a larger (perhaps low density) one. The balloon analogy more or less handles that one, but suggests too strongly a positively curved space-section, and also implies, even when one is careful, that there are more dimensions in which the space being discussed is imbedded. Seems to me that there must be some good elementary/novice level discussions one could borrow from. I think Abell once used an expanding, leavened cake with raisins in it. Finally, I think one has to be open about open questions, such as what could have come before the big bang, and what was its "cause". We are all used to cause and effect in a limited context, and it may or may not be meaningful to treat these issues, but I doubt that they will be settled or very much clarified on these pages. Best to sum up in a very few pithy sentences that we are approaching the limits of present theories so it is a research area. Pdn 04:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I am very uncomfortable with the new introduction, because it leads to exactly the sorts of confusion Pdn mentioned. –Joke137 13:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I made a rather lame attempt to fix this by calling it an "explosion of space itself", but please feel free to re-edit it if this is still not good enough. I was just trying to achieve the following things:

1. Indicate that the universe used to be much smaller (not just denser)
2. Give some explanation as to why it's called a "bang"
3. Give the lay person an initial gut feel for what is involved in such a colossal bang

Of course, accuracy is the paramount consideration. --Doradus 14:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, if anyone objects to the idea that the Big Bang necessarily implies a singularity, we had better change the caption on the first image. --Doradus 15:28, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Standard Problems

I would like to change the name of this section. Does anyone have any ideas?

It's confusing: why are the problems "standard"? I have a suspicion that it refers to the standard problems resolved by cosmic inflation, but that only applies to the first three. –Joke137 15:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

Someone changed the page to say it was about a "geometric" theory and other nonsense - of course there's a lot of physics in the CBR, synthesis of He (and traces of Be, Li) so it was just an attempt to downgrade the theory and I reverted it. Pdn 03:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about the addition in the Overview section reading: "It appears that the redshift research performed by Halton Arp in the 1960's is now more respected within the scientific community (not to mention the theological community). In 2005 and many scientists now prefer the steady-state theory over the Big Bang theory based up recent findings that support Arp's theories."? I don't think this is accurate and might be lost in the recent reverts. JHG 08:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed. --Doradus 12:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Singularity or not singularity?

Is there some reason we're being so careful not to commit ourselves to the concept of a gravitational singularity? Does anyone have a reference that indicates that some scientists consider the singularity to be in doubt? --Doradus 12:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I think most theories of quantum gravity attempt to eliminate the singularity. As it exists in general relativity, the singularity is a bad thing because it is not predictive. In no particular order, a list of attempts to resolve the singularity:

• Loop quantum gravity uses some technology to show that the superspace volume operator is bounded below (so that there is a minimum volume of space that can exist).
• String theory has some other ideas, some of which have to do with making singularities more fuzzy and some of which have to do with "resolving" the singularity by various mathematical tricks.
• The Hartle-Hawking state try to show that there is a unique, non-singular initial condition for the universe determined by some criteria or other.
• Brane cosmology may resolve the singularity by saying that, while it looks catastrophic in four dimensions, in a higher dimensional theory it is a less singular event, like the collision of two membranes.
• People used to think cosmic inflation resolved the singularity problem, but it turns out that inflation cannot go on eternally to the past, because de Sitter space is unstable.
• People used to believe that the singularity predicted by general relativity was a mere accident due to the high degree of symmetry of the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker universe, and that the universe would actually contract to a very dense state and start expanding again: the oscillatory universe. This idea was disproved by Steven Hawking in 1967, and it was shown that you would need to resort to quantum mechanics or exotic forms of matter to make the universe bounce in that way.

I could dig up references for any of these things, but it is hard to see where to start.–Joke137 18:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What About before the primeval atom?

I was looking for information on the origin of the universe and studied the big bang theory for a few years but i kept coming back to what came before the primeval atom? what caused or "created it?" how did it come into exsistence?

those questions are referenced in the second-to-last question in the article. Joshuaschroeder 12:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparent Expansion

Does anyone have any additional information regarding apparent expansion? It seems plausible, but would require some more details.

The "apparent expansion" that was included in the article did not belong here and was removed. Joshuaschroeder 13:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Milne Model?

I think you may be referring ("Apparent Expansion") to the Milne model. It is no longer acceptable but is dealt with in [2] as well as Rindler's and John D. North's books, I believe. If you mean something else, plz so state.Pdn 12:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Milne model still defines a universal edge. Apparent Expansion says there is no edge. Like in the illustration of a sphere whose side continues in all directions with no edge, or the premise that the universe leads to an infinite number of multiple universes, so if you traveled in one direction for long enough, you would apparently return to the same place (and the same time) you left from. The premise behind apparent expansion is the fact that there appears to be no center of expansion, but rather everything is expanding uniformly. Picture a galaxy at 5 million light years away. Now assume that beyond it there are five galaxies, say around 7-8 mln. light years away. And beyond that, at 10-12, twenty-five, and so on, to infinity. Let's assume the gravity of the more distant galaxies (and remember, we're assuming their amount is infinite) is always pulling the galaxy at 5 light years away farther away from us, we being the centre of the universe from our perspective (although threre can be no centre except relatively). We can follow the same example for those galaxies 7-8 million light years away, and so on. The farther the galaxy the fast it seems to be moving, but only relatively. It is obvious that in the galaxy 5 mln light years away, the further galaxies would seem to move at a slower rate than is apparent on earth. The whole model draws from the fact that according to quantum physics there is no universal edge or universal centre, things imperative for the big bang to make sense.--ChadThomson 03:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have never given a reference to "Apparent Expansion" and I have searched Wikipedia and do not find it. Your description is sketchy and it does not seem consistent to me - if distant galaxies are pulling intermediate ones "away", nevertheless our neighbors are pulling the intermediate ones towards, and in all homogeneous relativistic cosmologies that wins. The accelerated expansion is due to "dark energy" which is pumping up the universe and is not described as a pull of galaxies on each other.Pdn 15:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Several of these statements are puzzling. In particular, as the universe's distribution is approximately uniform on large scales, the galaxy 5 million LY away wouldn't be pulled away from us by gravity, but would stay in the same position relative to us, if space itself were not expanding (it sees equal amounts of matter on all sides of it). If space _is_ uniformly expanding, per the big bang model, then there is nothing magical needed in order to explain that more distant galaxies are moving faster, relative to you, than nearby ones no matter where you stand, so I'm not seeing what you're trying to add. Secondly, I am reasonably familiar with "quantum physics", and I don't see how the claims you ascribe to it are drawn from it (it can deal with bounded systems just fine, and the idea that our place in the universe should _not_ be assumed to be special predates it by centuries). If you could cite a few papers that take the position you are trying to illustrate, that would perhaps be a better source to draw material from. --Christopher Thomas 04:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess my question would be this: to what degree is space expanding? Is the space between atoms' nuclei and electrons also expanding? We could never find out, because we, the observers, would be expanding at the same rate as everything else. Even so, the idea is ridiculous, as the atomic force keeps the atoms the way they are. And why are the galaxies moving away from each other, but the stars are not? Well, the logical answer is the force of gravity generated from the supermassive gynormous black holes in the center of the galaxies keeps them together. So then the question remains, why against all odds are the galaxies seemingly breaking the law of gravity, and spreading out from each other (not from an observable centre)? Even if there was a centre with a diameter of one Planck Length, what kind of impossible explosion would have had to have occured in order for the matter to spread out to such a degree, and what kind of momentum would have to be pushing the galaxies away at an ever-heightening speed, against all odds and laws. Either some force stronger than gravity and momentum, that we haven't discovered is stretching the galaxy, or the expansion is only apparent. The expansion isn't slowing down, and it isn't stemming from a centre (as far as is proveable), these are both requirements for the big bang.--ChadThomson 05:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is explained in most texts on the subject. The short answer is that for the type of expansion generally assumed (one whose rate is not speeding up exponentially), bound systems stay bound (the fact that space is expanding just changes what the stable binding energy is slightly). Systems that aren't bound (anything larger than a supercluster) will fly into their disparate (bound) components. Really, really huge structures would have their binding energies tweaked enough that they might be impossible to bind, but the size required is large enough that this doesn't seem to be an issue for our universe. The exception is if you postulate that the _rate_ of expansion is increasing without bound. For any given size, such a system will eventually be expanding at a high enough rate to prevent systems of that size from remaining bound at any energy, which results in the big rip scenario. We don't know enough about the nature of dark energy to say whether such a scenario is likely, but the simplest models don't result in it. None of these cases requires a new attractive force or a new repulsive force. Answers longer than this require me to write a screen or two of equations, which I'm assuming you aren't interested in. --Christopher Thomas 05:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You also appear to be misunderstanding what the big bang model proposes. It doesn't require the universe to have any "central point" within it, as _all_ points within it were once at the same location. Neither does the big bang model require that the expansion be slowing down (it sped up during inflation, and appears to be speeding up now). How the rate of expansion changes depends on what the universe's contents are (normal matter makes it slow down, though not necessarily stop, and the properties of both dark energy and the inflationary field cause it to speed up).--Christopher Thomas 06:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well, after reading about dark matter, you get the idea that the universe is surrounded by it, which is causing the outward pull. Very interesting. Another question I have, is this. Relative to what did the universe start expanding? --ChadThomson 09:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The short answer is "relative to itself". The analogy usually given is that of a balloon inflating - no point on the surface of the balloon is the "center" of the expansion, but everything on that surface keeps moving farther apart. This is slightly misleading, in that the balloon is embedded in 3D Euclidian space, while the universe doesn't have to be embedded in anything. As for dark matter, it more or less acts the same way as normal matter, collapsing into gravitationally bound discs and clumps on a small scale, while being more or less uniformly distributed on a large scale. The difference is that because of dark matter's properties, the smallest size of structure it forms is the size of a galaxy. Galaxies, and larger structures, are visible because normal matter is mixed in with and follows the dark matter as it clumps on these (relatively small) scales. When enough matter (normal and dark) is present in one place, you get star birth and a galaxy forming. Within galaxies, its distribution is different from that of normal matter, but on a larger scale, it's pretty much the same.--Christopher Thomas 14:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that's quite clear. Of course it requires a lot of assumptions, but on the other hand it answers lots of questions (though not all). The real challenge is discovering what exactly dark matter is. If it is indeed dark matter that is causing the expansion, then is it dark matter that caused the "bang"? If so, where did this dark matter come from. And does the big bang theory have any light to shed on why reality is expressed in matter and why matter is formed by the numerous elementary particles, and not in some other way? Why is energy present in the form of particles, and why does one of those particles (the photon) have no mass? Why are all the laws of nature present which made it possible for the quark-gluon plasma to form into matter as we now know it? Why is matter fixed in space-time, and stipulated by space-time? Perhaps we are too used to nature to understand that there can be no particular reason why everything is (or appears to be) the way it is. People cite the structure of the eye as proof for intelligent design. I cite the complexity of the big bang, and everything that had to be in place and prepared (by whom?) to act in a certain way.--ChadThomson 04:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It requires fewer assumptions than you think. The presence of dark matter was inferred from observations; it wasn't just pulled out of thin air. Our current conception of it is, more or less, the simplest explanation we can think of for a wide variety of phenomena. See dark matter for a detailed discussion of this. As for the expansion of the universe, that's driven by dark energy, which is a different beast (though it counts as "dark matter" in that it posesses energy/mass and so counts towards initial flatness, it differs in that it doesn't clump and isn't conserved the way normal matter is). As for the whether the big bang explains the nature of matter, it's the other way around - our current understanding of physics is what points towards possible explanations for the big bang. As for why the laws of physics are the way they are, this is suspected to partly be a reflection of deeper underlying symmetries (which supersymmetry and string theory take a crack at expressing), and partly just happenstance (as the universe's temperature dropped below the temperature at which symmetry was broken, the final state that it ended up in after breaking was pretty arbitrarily selected from the set of valid possibilities). My best suggestion is to skim the web for FAQs on physics and particle physics, and then pick up a few first-year university texts on the aspects that interest you, because there's no way I can do it justice short of writing a book-length article on the subject. As for intelligent design, Occam's Razor cautions against making that assumption for the time being, as the behavior of the universe stems from simple enough principles that it doesn't appear to be needed. Final summary would be, "It looks strange and confusing, but it's really a lot simpler and more elegant than it looks, for reasons that are only easy to explain if you have a decade or two of math under your belt.".--Christopher Thomas 05:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Thomas' explanations are good descriptions of the state of theory, but I do want to point out that some of this is really just theory right now. Dark matter and dark energy are, at this point, almost just names for things we don't yet understand. In fact, these are some of the hot topics in cosmology. Nevertheless, Christopher's arguments are sound, since observations do seem to show that the effects implied by these concepts are real.

Chris Mid 28 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)

I must say I'm not surprised. Atheists are just as dogmatic about their doctrines as anyone else. If cornered, they will admit it's only a theory, but until then, they seem to deem any possible explanations for scientific phenomena (i.e. the existence of the universe) that they like as "fact". Good luck disproving fact all you pitiful creationists.

ChadThomson 30 June 2005 11:25 (UTC)

Antiscientific attitudes such as yours, Chad, do not have a place in editting science articles, you will find. You may be able to add more over at creationism. I might point out that you have a very poor understanding of scientific theory. Best of luck. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 11:32 (UTC)

You still haven't explained the existence of the universe Mr. Schroeder

ChadThomson 1 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)

The short version is to say that our current understanding of physical laws is compatible with a scenario where the primordial universe appears out of nothingness. The long version is out of scope here. If you're honestly interested in the subject, read some of the references I suggested earlier. If you're _not_ interested in the subject, and are instead just trying to promote your own view regardless of any arguments based on evidence, take it elsewhere. --Christopher Thomas 1 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)

You're not actually claiming there's "evidence" for the appearance of the universe out of nothingness? That's completely out of your jurisdiction as a scientist. Science could never explain "nothingness" and "its intrinsic qualites which allow for appearance of 'somethingness'." Of course speculation on the "qualities" of nothingness is rather (quite, extremely) absurd, and more absurd for a scientist, whose job it is to investigate the observable universe and make inferences. Sure, I'm not a scientist, but I'm an intelligent person, and anyone can see the preposterousness of what you're saying. "Our current understanding of physical laws is compatible with the primordial universe appearing" for any reason whatsoever. A true scientific attitude seeks origins, causes (even Mr. Schroeder can't deny that). So we can come to some conclusions:

1. Science makes inferences from observable reality about causes, origins, reasons, etc.

2. Science cannot observe or infer anything about "nothingness" (and neither can anything with a brain).

3. Therefore "science" which claims "nothingness" as a starting point is ridiculous.

Please, believe in the big bang, if it answers questions, maybe I've joined you in your belief (the evidence is profound), but please, don't try to claim scientific evidence for "something from nothing." It's impossible, and in the end, when you have nothing left to say, the only thing you'll be able to do is wave some diploma at me, but you'll have missed the point. Enough of that, though. ChadThomson 1 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Look up virtual particles for other situations where postulating something appearing from nothing not only makes sense, but explains a large number of other observations. Also, as others have requested, _please_ learn about the models before making blanket claims about whether or not they're sensible. They are incomplete, but are still the most plausible explanations of reality found to date. Understand them, whether you agree or disagree with them. --Christopher Thomas 1 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)

"A virtual particle is a temporary elementary particle, used to describe an intermediate stage in the interaction." Can someone please give me a link to a site which seriously explains how a virtual particle can be any more than a "description". And on another note, a parallel cannot truly be drawn between virtual particles and reality. First of all, saying "virtual particles arise from nothing" and "real particles arise from nothing" and some connecting the two ideas is logically impossible. Secondly, the article, "A virtual particle is never the end result of such a process." Virtual particles are never directly observed because they seem to self-annihilate instantaneously (pay close attention to the word "never" in the above quote). Therefore, the parallel breaks down. We don't have nothing resulting in something, but rather nothing maybe resulting in something and consecutively in nothing once again. Sure it explains a lot, but try to isolate the virtual antiparticles and virtual particles created out of nothing using an electromagnetic field. Would it work?

Finally, the particles, if they were proved to be "real" as opposed to "virtual" are regardless the result of something, i.e. the reaction that needs them, they are propagators, a direct result of an action causing the reaction (of which a part could conceivably be these particles). In order for them to exist, the universe must already exist, i.e. they are not truly resulting from nothing. I would request an article on Wikipedia titled "the minus-first law of thermodynamics" it could describe the scientific fact that matter (and spacetime for that matter) does indeed sporadically generate itself out of nothing, along with the other four laws of thermodynamics (bibliography a must). I would be the first to request it as a featured article.

(By the way: we've found a [refuted] example of matter from nothing. How about an example of spacetime from nothing? It's impossible to picture, I know, but try to picture it. Oops, you just pictured nothing for two seconds.)ChadThomson 1 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)

If you consider your comments here a refutation, then I'm afraid there's no point in continuing this conversation, as you're misapplying philosophical arguments rather than making any attempt to learn the background behind the scientific ones. You can easily _directly_ demonstrate the existence of virtual particles by looking at the Casimir effect, and virtual particles can become real in the vicinity of black holes (producing Hawking radiation). The universe, like virtual particles, could appear out of nothing (in many of the Big Bang model variants) because it had zero net energy at the time of creation (a flat universe exactly balances gravitational potential energy (negative) and mass (positive), though the universe evolved away from flatness afterwards). As for "creating space from nothing", what exactly do you think Hubble expansion is? The amount of space present is changing as we watch. Lastly, rather than complain about the lack of references, how about looking up some of the ones I've given you? They will give you a much clearer picture of the model of reality that the scientific community uses, which will a) reduce some of your confusion about what it's saying and b) let you debate meaningfully about it. Your objections so far seem to be based on misconceptions.--Christopher Thomas 1 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)