The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Advertise here

Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old January 6th, 2013, 09:30 AM
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire
でんきタイプ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire

Advertise here
Re-creating a nice old thread


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gymnotide
ITT: Discuss.

How do you think the world came to be? Was there a void before the world existed, or has the world existed forever? Do you believe that someone / something created the world, or caused it to be? Do you believe that someone / something has made the world turn into what it is, or do you believe that everything is merely coincidence, or do you believe that there is no motivating force for the world to change, but it does so anyway? Do you believe in evolution? If not, how did the species of Earth come to be this way? Is there such thing as a "god"? Do you view the world as a reflection of divinity or merely in scientific terms (or both)? What does "world" mean? How far does your definition of "world" expand? What shape does the world take (...flat-earth believers welcome, grudgingly)? Is the world static or always growing? Do you believe in parallel worlds? Do you believe in a multiverse?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old January 6th, 2013, 10:14 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Big bang, stars, protoplanetary disk, planet Earth, simple life, evolution, humans. I'm skipping a few steps, but that's basically how I think it went down. Basically the prevailing scientific ideas.

No motivating force or intelligence or design to it. Just chance. And maybe not such an astronomical chance like we used to think, too. After all, we used to think there was only one sun and one planet and that all that other stuff in the sky was window dressing, but now we know there are planets everywhere revolving around their own suns. It kinda seems like life is a statistical inevitability so even though science doesn't weigh in on whether there was a god controlling everything, it doesn't seem like the complexity of human intelligence is so special that we'd need to excuse it as something other than natural.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old January 6th, 2013, 10:18 AM
Sassy Milkshake's Avatar
Sassy Milkshake
It's ok to cry.
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
My definition of "world" means Earth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is solid evidence for Earth's creation, balls of rock floating around becoming planets, something to that extent.

Now the universe, that's a different story. I don't subscribe to any of the theories to be honest. I feel like the universe was created, and we'll never know how. Science explains it, and so does religion. Both have their flaws though. That being said, any of the other concepts, especially the more abstract ones, are explained, but most of the time not proven. I try not to put my full belief into any one conclusion and at the same time, not discard it. I'm a very indecisive person.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old January 6th, 2013, 04:44 PM
Crux's Avatar
Crux
Evermore
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: 青い世界
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Send a message via Skype™ to Crux
This is a difficult discussion to make any ground on as far as I see... who's to say that our world "earth" isn't just a speck of dust in a vacuum on a planet fifty billion times the size of ours? Improbable? Well, yes, but... what proof do you have that it's not? Can you honestly tell me, with total certainty, that it is impossible?

You get my point.
As absurd as the above arguement is there's no definitive, or cogent evidence to fully disprove it.
Yes there has been countless religious leaders, and scientists that have stated a theory or two, but that is all they are theories.

In answer to your question:

Do you believe in parallel worlds?
Sure, I don't see why not.

Do you believe in a multiverse?
It's possible I suppose.

What is the origin of the planet Earth?
I don't know, the thought is staggering.
__________________





{Never and Forever}

Tees | Coming Soon | Coming Soon
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old January 7th, 2013, 06:43 PM
Brynjolf's Avatar
Brynjolf
It's so overt it's covert
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: The Ragged Flagon
Gender: Female
I honestly do not buy religion's idea of creation. At all.
No offense if you're religious, but I think their teachings are somewhat ... Err.. Arrogant?

Anyway, I think that the universe's creation will probably never be figured out.. Earth, however, was born through gravity pulling huge planetoids together. Then the comets crashed into us and brought water and left our ozone there. Stuff of the sciency sort.
__________________
Are you sure you want to play this game?
I'm afraid you'd lose
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old February 1st, 2013, 10:50 AM
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire
でんきタイプ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
We know that creationism in entirely a farce. We know how the universe began and we, for the most part, understand the cosmic processes that allowed for its creation and that drive the universe today. This is scientific fact. We just don't know why. And maybe we're not supposed to know why.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old February 1st, 2013, 10:58 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
The big bang and then eventually evolution and all that jazz
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old February 1st, 2013, 06:53 PM
droomph's Avatar
droomph
mmm gurl that 90s
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: bar'jách
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Nature: Impish
There's something outside of the observable plane of existence that we can't know about (we will literally destroy ourselves if we learn of that "other" thing completely) that created us in one way or another, but that's only the trigger.

Everything else happened as it has been told to happen. Creationism, yes, it's stupid. No real God or whatever exists here, but outside of "existence" (meaning all the universes and stuff) there's something (maybe not even a "thing", as I told you, nobody can learn of the secret) that created us - directly or indirectly, purposely or by accident.

And intelligent design is not true - we just happen to have been deposited here, in a by-chance planet and body where things look cool and whatnot. So it's not more of "intelligent design", as much as "intelligent deposit". Much less arrogant, also, which is a plus. Any God other than the one that caused "existence" is just a lie. And God doesn't have a huge beard, or shrouded in light - he's something, maybe not something - he doesn't have any conceivable form that wouldn't literally destroy your brains just by the sheer immensity of the description. We can only personify him, so that he doesn't melt our brains.

You will also notice, that my description of "that guy" are very closely to the Christian description of God. I'm sorry - since there's no way to explain it to you all "perfectly", my biases are rooted in the description. Just think of it this way - "It is, but not how you are." Anything you've seen, ever learned about, ever thought - it's all nonsense when you compare it to the other thing, and vice versa.
__________________
did u no there r 21 letters in the alphabet
o i forgot 5
uraqt


Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old February 1st, 2013, 10:40 PM
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
There are guys a lot smarter than me stumped by that question. The pursuit of knowledge is a good thing, but I'll leave that particular knowledge to people who've chose to actually devote themselves to it. My two cents isn't going to make much of a difference and it's certainly not going to enlighten anyone, at least not any more than someone who actually has an idea of what they're talking about. Ask me when you have computer issues or some sort of ethical problem.
__________________
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

PM me if you have computer troubles. I work in IT for a living and can probably solve your problems. My rate is $expensive/hr, but I'm still cheaper than Creep Squad and, unlike them, will actually get the job done or let you know if I can't.

Quote:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken, unsourced

Quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

NEW 40K MMOFPS YESSSSS
Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old February 2nd, 2013, 07:06 PM
TheErd30's Avatar
TheErd30
Unhatched Egg
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Nashville, TN
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
We know that creationism in entirely a farce. We know how the universe began and we, for the most part, understand the cosmic processes that allowed for its creation and that drive the universe today. This is scientific fact. We just don't know why. And maybe we're not supposed to know why.
We "know" how the universe began? Really? We know it. As in, we K.N.O.W. how the UNIVERSE began? That is a very bold statement. I'm not sure if I agree with you on that.
__________________
I am THE Charizard breeder.

Black friend code: 3439 6973 7689
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old February 2nd, 2013, 07:11 PM
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheErd30 View Post
We "know" how the universe began? Really? We know it. As in, we K.N.O.W. how the UNIVERSE began? That is a very bold statement. I'm not sure if I agree with you on that.
I don't know that rain only happens when it's cloudy, but I'm pretty darn sure it does. Likewise, I don't know that rain isn't caused by a rain wizard, but I'm pretty darn sure it's not.
__________________
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

PM me if you have computer troubles. I work in IT for a living and can probably solve your problems. My rate is $expensive/hr, but I'm still cheaper than Creep Squad and, unlike them, will actually get the job done or let you know if I can't.

Quote:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken, unsourced

Quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

NEW 40K MMOFPS YESSSSS
Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old February 2nd, 2013, 07:28 PM
TheErd30's Avatar
TheErd30
Unhatched Egg
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Nashville, TN
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocows View Post
I don't know that rain only happens when it's cloudy, but I'm pretty darn sure it does. Likewise, I don't know that rain isn't caused by a rain wizard, but I'm pretty darn sure it's not.
Speculating about rain and KNOWING how our universe came to be is two completely different things. I'm simply saying that to know how our universe came to be is overly bold.
__________________
I am THE Charizard breeder.

Black friend code: 3439 6973 7689
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old February 2nd, 2013, 08:13 PM
Snowdrop's Avatar
Snowdrop
Throw a blanket over it!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Fishbowl Space
Gender: Female
Nature: Jolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocows View Post
I don't know that rain only happens when it's cloudy, but I'm pretty darn sure it does.
Have you ever seen the rain coming down on a sunny day?


Sorry for that abomination of a joke. Anyways, I pretty much agree with science in the big bang and evolution and everything. I kinda have to, it's fact. However, in my opinion, I believe that no conscious or living force had anything to do with it. Well, okay, evolution is driven by how well living creatures are adapting but I mean a conscious living being with a plan. You know. How the universe itself started before the big bang and all that is an absolutely baffling question to me, and whether we will ever find out the answer to that I can't tell you. I start thinking about it and it makes my head spin! What is the study of this stuff even called? Studying origins of the universe itself? @_@
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old February 2nd, 2013, 08:39 PM
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire
でんきタイプ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheErd30 View Post
We "know" how the universe began? Really? We know it. As in, we K.N.O.W. how the UNIVERSE began? That is a very bold statement. I'm not sure if I agree with you on that.
Did you skip grade school science?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old February 2nd, 2013, 08:49 PM
TheErd30's Avatar
TheErd30
Unhatched Egg
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Nashville, TN
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Did you skip grade school science?
Yeah I did. So why don't you educate me and tell me exactly how the universe came into being. Please! I've been wanting someone to fill the void of my absent years in grade school for so very long.
__________________
I am THE Charizard breeder.

Black friend code: 3439 6973 7689
Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old February 2nd, 2013, 08:56 PM
droomph's Avatar
droomph
mmm gurl that 90s
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: bar'jách
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Nature: Impish
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheErd30 View Post
Yeah I did. So why don't you educate me and tell me exactly how the universe came into being. Please! I've been wanting someone to fill the void of my absent years in grade school for so very long.
Alright, if you insist.

Nothing we accept as fact is true to everyone - we have to accept that people are telling the truth. It's the only way you can "learn" - trust your sources. In the grand scheme of things, MIT is about as great a source of information as streetknowledge.co.cc. The only way to "learn" things is to do them.

That being said, creationism is merely a metaphor. God doesn't give a crap about our mediocre "days", he's got billions of years under his belt. He could have shaped the animals slooooooowly, like evolution kind of slow. Did he make DNA from RNA because he was bored? Stuff like that. It's pointless, and though it may be true, science is a more reliable way to explain things than religion (you know, with the whole "precision" and "scientific method" bs that them kids are talkin' about)

And how did the universe come to be? Sure, it's just a speculation, but we've searched this idea as much as we've searched a cave.



Look at the person descending into the cave - that's science. It's small, but surely. As long as the cave doesn't collapse, it will march on, and write down everything it can. In this universe, only one thing is certain - we still have more to learn.

With the whole "big bang is stoopid" and "OMG do we KNOW know know?" thing out of the way, the rest should be a lot easier to explain.

The big bang isn't a fact of life - for all we know, a giant elf-servant of God might be having a bad bowel movement and we're his fart bubble of poop. But as far as we can tell, we started how the big bang theory says we started - a point, with no spatial direction or being whatsoever, just existed (remember, we can't speculate anything before that point or else PCHOO) and then steadily expanded from there on. That's the current theory. But if we find out that the giant elf ate a bad burrito and that's why there's Mexicans that bomb communist terrorists, we're going to take that and shove the Big Bang theory aside.

And as for rain, it's water falling from the sky. Clouds, whatever. Trust your science teacher, because we've definitively searched the rain wizard, and he just turns out to be dust particles.

And if you need a better example of the plasticity of theories, turn to Einstein's works. When they got out, we just gave the birdie to Newton's pretty and not-theoretical (ie stupid) equations and then showered Einstein with flowers, chocolate, pretty women and nuclear bombs. That's just one of the examples - this happens very often. Charles Darwin has had his theories disproved the second he released them with a new and more refined theory, and these things go on and on, every second of the day.
__________________
did u no there r 21 letters in the alphabet
o i forgot 5
uraqt


Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old February 2nd, 2013, 09:10 PM
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire
でんきタイプ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheErd30 View Post
Yeah I did. So why don't you educate me and tell me exactly how the universe came into being. Please! I've been wanting someone to fill the void of my absent years in grade school for so very long.
Quote:
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.77 billion years ago,[2] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[3][4][5][6] After this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei could have formed quickly, thousands of years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae.[7] The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures,[8][9][10] and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment in such conditions, resulting in further development of the model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

Georges Lemaître first proposed what became the Big Bang theory in what he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." Over time, scientists built on his initial ideas to form the modern synthesis. The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[11]

While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of the Steady State theory,[12] most scientists became convinced that some version of the Big Bang scenario best fit observations after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body. Since then, astrophysicists have incorporated a wide range of observational and theoretical additions into the Big Bang model, and its parametrization as the Lambda-CDM model serves as the framework for current investigations of theoretical cosmology.

Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[14] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[15][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has a calculated age of 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years.[17] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the Universe.

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[18] After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[19] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.[20]

Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF)
XDF size compared to the size of the moon - several thousand galaxies, each consisting of billions of stars, are in this small view.
XDF (2012) view - each light speck is a galaxy - some of these are as old as 13.2 billion years[21] - the universe is estimated to contain 200 billion galaxies.
XDF image shows fully mature galaxies in the foreground plane - nearly mature galaxies from 5 to 9 billion years ago - protogalaxies, blazing with young stars, beyond 9 billion years.

The Universe continued to decrease in density and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form.[22] After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the Universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos).

A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion (one thousand million; 109; SI prefix giga-) kelvin and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the Universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis.[23] Most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei. As the Universe cooled, the rest mass energy density of matter came to gravitationally dominate that of the photon radiation. After about 379,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation.[24]

Over a long period of time, the slightly denser regions of the nearly uniformly distributed matter gravitationally attracted nearby matter and thus grew even denser, forming gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical structures observable today. The details of this process depend on the amount and type of matter in the Universe. The four possible types of matter are known as cold dark matter, warm dark matter, hot dark matter, and baryonic matter. The best measurements available (from WMAP) show that the data is well-fit by a Lambda-CDM model in which dark matter is assumed to be cold (warm dark matter is ruled out by early reionization[25]), and is estimated to make up about 23% of the matter/energy of the universe, while baryonic matter makes up about 4.6%.[26] In an "extended model" which includes hot dark matter in the form of neutrinos, then if the "physical baryon density" Ωbh2 is estimated at about 0.023 (this is different from the 'baryon density' Ωb expressed as a fraction of the total matter/energy density, which as noted above is about 0.046), and the corresponding cold dark matter density Ωch2 is about 0.11, the corresponding neutrino density Ωvh2 is estimated to be less than 0.0062.[26]

Independent lines of evidence from Type Ia supernovae and the CMB imply that the Universe today is dominated by a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy, which apparently permeates all of space. The observations suggest 73% of the total energy density of today's Universe is in this form. When the Universe was very young, it was likely infused with dark energy, but with less space and everything closer together, gravity had the upper hand, and it was slowly braking the expansion. But eventually, after numerous billion years of expansion, the growing abundance of dark energy caused the expansion of the Universe to slowly begin to accelerate. Dark energy in its simplest formulation takes the form of the cosmological constant term in Einstein's field equations of general relativity, but its composition and mechanism are unknown and, more generally, the details of its equation of state and relationship with the Standard Model of particle physics continue to be investigated both observationally and theoretically.[27]

All of this cosmic evolution after the inflationary epoch can be rigorously described and modeled by the ΛCDM model of cosmology, which uses the independent frameworks of quantum mechanics and Einstein's General Relativity. As noted above, there is no well-supported model describing the action prior to 10−15 seconds or so. Apparently a new unified theory of quantum gravitation is needed to break this barrier. Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the Universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.
Underlying assumptions

The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10−5.[28] Also, general relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the Solar System and binary stars.[notes 2]

If the large-scale Universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been confirmed to a level of 10−5 via observations of the CMB.[notes 3][citation needed] The Universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales at the 10% level.[29]
FLRW metric
Main articles: Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and Metric expansion of space

General relativity describes spacetime by a metric, which determines the distances that separate nearby points. The points, which can be galaxies, stars, or other objects, themselves are specified using a coordinate chart or "grid" that is laid down over all spacetime. The cosmological principle implies that the metric should be homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, which uniquely singles out the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric (FLRW metric). This metric contains a scale factor, which describes how the size of the Universe changes with time. This enables a convenient choice of a coordinate system to be made, called comoving coordinates. In this coordinate system the grid expands along with the Universe, and objects that are moving only due to the expansion of the Universe remain at fixed points on the grid. While their coordinate distance (comoving distance) remains constant, the physical distance between two such comoving points expands proportionally with the scale factor of the Universe.[30]

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our Universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space.
Horizons
Main article: Cosmological horizon

An important feature of the Big Bang spacetime is the presence of horizons. Since the Universe has a finite age, and light travels at a finite speed, there may be events in the past whose light has not had time to reach us. This places a limit or a past horizon on the most distant objects that can be observed. Conversely, because space is expanding, and more distant objects are receding ever more quickly, light emitted by us today may never "catch up" to very distant objects. This defines a future horizon, which limits the events in the future that we will be able to influence. The presence of either type of horizon depends on the details of the FLRW model that describes our Universe. Our understanding of the Universe back to very early times suggests that there is a past horizon, though in practice our view is also limited by the opacity of the Universe at early times. So our view cannot extend further backward in time, though the horizon recedes in space. If the expansion of the Universe continues to accelerate, there is a future horizon as well.[31]
History
Main article: History of the Big Bang theory
See also: Timeline of cosmology
Etymology

Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models.[32][33][34]
Development
Artist's depiction of the WMAP satellite gathering data to help scientists understand the Big Bang

The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the Universe and from theoretical considerations. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.[35][36] Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the Universe might be expanding in contrast to the static Universe model advocated by Einstein at that time.[37] In 1924 Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the inferred recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the Universe.[38]

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[39]

Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100-inch (2,500 mm) Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929 Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recession velocity—now known as Hubble's law.[11][40] Lemaître had already shown that this was expected, given the Cosmological Principle.[27]

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[41] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[42] Arthur Eddington agreed with Aristotle that the universe did not have a beginning in time, viz., that matter is eternal. A beginning in time was "repugnant" to him.[43][44] Lemaître, however, thought that

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time.[45]

During the 1930s other ideas were proposed as non-standard cosmologies to explain Hubble's observations, including the Milne model,[46] the oscillatory Universe (originally suggested by Friedmann, but advocated by Albert Einstein and Richard Tolman)[47] and Fritz Zwicky's tired light hypothesis.[48]

After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady state model, whereby new matter would be created as the Universe seemed to expand. In this model the Universe is roughly the same at any point in time.[49] The other was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow, who introduced big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN)[50] and whose associates, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).[51] Ironically, it was Hoyle who coined the phrase that came to be applied to Lemaître's theory, referring to it as "this big bang idea" during a BBC Radio broadcast in March 1949.[52][notes 4] For a while, support was split between these two theories. Eventually, the observational evidence, most notably from radio source counts, began to favor Big Bang over Steady State. The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964[54] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding the physics of the Universe at earlier and earlier times, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.

Significant progress in Big Bang cosmology have been made since the late 1990s as a result of advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of data from satellites such as COBE,[55] the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.[56] Cosmologists now have fairly precise and accurate measurements of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating.
Observational evidence

"[T]he big bang picture is too firmly grounded in data from every area to be proved invalid in its general features."
Lawrence Krauss[57]

The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the relative abundances of light elements produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and today also the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies[58] predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard theory. These are sometimes called "the four pillars of the Big Bang theory".[59]

Precise modern models of the Big Bang appeal to various exotic physical phenomena that have not been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments or incorporated into the Standard Model of particle physics. Of these features, dark matter is currently subjected to the most active laboratory investigations.[60] Remaining issues include the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter. Dark energy is also an area of intense interest for scientists, but it is not clear whether direct detection of dark energy will be possible.[61] Inflation and baryogenesis remain more speculative features of current Big Bang models.[notes 5][citation needed] Viable, quantitative explanations for such phenomena are still being sought. These are currently unsolved problems in physics.

Hubble's law and the expansion of space
Main articles: Hubble's law and Metric expansion of space
See also: Distance measures (cosmology) and Scale factor (universe)

Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This can be seen by taking a frequency spectrum of an object and matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. These redshifts are uniformly isotropic, distributed evenly among the observed objects in all directions. If the redshift is interpreted as a Doppler shift, the recessional velocity of the object can be calculated. For some galaxies, it is possible to estimate distances via the cosmic distance ladder. When the recessional velocities are plotted against these distances, a linear relationship known as Hubble's law is observed:[11]

v = H0D,

where

v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object,
D is the comoving distance to the object, and
H0 is Hubble's constant, measured to be 70.4 +1.3
−1.4 km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe.[26]

Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican principle—or the Universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander Friedmann in 1922[37] and Georges Lemaître in 1927,[38] well before Hubble made his 1929 analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson, and Walker.

The theory requires the relation v = HD to hold at all times, where D is the comoving distance, v is the recessional velocity, and v, H, and D vary as the Universe expands (hence we write H0 to denote the present-day Hubble "constant"). For distances much smaller than the size of the observable Universe, the Hubble redshift can be thought of as the Doppler shift corresponding to the recession velocity v. However, the redshift is not a true Doppler shift, but rather the result of the expansion of the Universe between the time the light was emitted and the time that it was detected.[62]

That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the Cosmological principle and the Copernican principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogenous,[11] supporting the Cosmological principle that the Universe looks the same in all directions, along with much other evidence. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so similar in different directions.

Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems in 2000 proved the Copernican principle, that, on a cosmological scale, the Earth is not in a central position.[63] Radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the Universe. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the Universe is experiencing a metric expansion, and excludes the possibility that we are near the unique center of an explosion.
Cosmic microwave background radiation
Main article: Cosmic microwave background radiation
9 year WMAP image of the cosmic microwave background radiation (2012).[17][64] The radiation is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000.[65]

In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipitously discovered the cosmic background radiation, an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band.[54] Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions: the radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions; this spectrum has been redshifted by the expansion of the universe, and today corresponds to approximately 2.725 K. This tipped the balance of evidence in favor of the Big Bang model, and Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978.

The surface of last scattering corresponding to emission of the CMB occurs shortly after recombination, the epoch when neutral hydrogen becomes stable. Prior to this, the universe comprised a hot dense photon-baryon plasma sea where photons were quickly scattered from free charged particles. Peaking at around 372±14 kyr,[25] the mean free path for a photon becomes long enough to reach the present day and the universe becomes transparent.
The cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE satellite is the most-precisely measured black body spectrum in nature.[66] The data points and error bars on this graph are obscured by the theoretical curve.

In 1989 NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE). Its findings were consistent with predictions regarding the CMB, finding a residual temperature of 2.726 K (more recent measurements have revised this figure down slightly to 2.725 K) and providing the first evidence for fluctuations (anisotropies) in the CMB, at a level of about one part in 105.[55] John C. Mather and George Smoot were awarded the Nobel Prize for their leadership in this work. During the following decade, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based and balloon experiments. In 2000–2001 several experiments, most notably BOOMERanG, found the shape of the Universe to be spatially almost flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies.

In early 2003 the first results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) were released, yielding what were at the time the most accurate values for some of the cosmological parameters. The results disproved several specific cosmic inflation models, but are consistent with the inflation theory in general.[56] The Planck space probe was launched in May 2009. Other ground and balloon based cosmic microwave background experiments are ongoing.
Abundance of primordial elements
Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis

Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium, and lithium-7 in the Universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen.[23] The relative abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. This value can be calculated independently from the detailed structure of CMB fluctuations. The ratios predicted (by mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10−3 for 2H/H, about 10−4 for 3He/H and about 10−9 for 7Li/H.[23]

The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and off by a factor of two 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to "tune" the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium.[67] Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young Universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too.
Galactic evolution and distribution
Main articles: Galaxy formation and evolution, Large-scale structure of the cosmos, and Structure formation
This panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky reveals the distribution of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. The galaxies are color-coded by redshift.

Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars are in agreement with the current state of the Big Bang theory. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early Universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but 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 agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the Universe and are helping to complete details of the theory.[68][69]
Primordial gas clouds

In 2011 astronomers found pristine clouds of the primordial gas that they believe formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. The composition of the gas matches theoretical predictions, providing evidence in support of the modern cosmological explanation for the origins of elements in the universe. The researchers discovered the two clouds of pristine gas by analyzing the light from distant quasars, using the HIRES spectrometer on the Keck I Telescope at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii. They saw absorption lines in the spectrum where the light was absorbed by the gas, and that allows them to measure the composition of the gas.[70][71]
Other lines of evidence

The age of Universe as estimated from the Hubble expansion and the CMB is now in good agreement with other estimates using the ages of the oldest stars, both as measured by applying the theory of stellar evolution to globular clusters and through radiometric dating of individual Population II stars.[72]

The prediction that the CMB temperature was higher in the past has been experimentally supported by observations of very low temperature absorption lines in gas clouds at high redshift.[73] This prediction also implies that the amplitude of the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect in clusters of galaxies does not depend directly on redshift. Observations have found this to be roughly true, but this effect depends on cluster properties that do change with cosmic time, making precise measurements difficult.[74][75]
Related issues in physics
Baryon asymmetry
Main article: Baryon asymmetry

It is not yet understood why the Universe has more matter than antimatter.[76] It is generally assumed that when the Universe was young and very hot, it was in statistical equilibrium and contained equal numbers of baryons and antibaryons. However, observations suggest that the Universe, including its most distant parts, is made almost entirely of matter. A process called baryogenesis was hypothesized to account for the asymmetry. For baryogenesis to occur, the Sakharov conditions must be satisfied. These require that baryon number is not conserved, that C-symmetry and CP-symmetry are violated and that the Universe depart from thermodynamic equilibrium.[77] All these conditions occur in the Standard Model, but the effect is not strong enough to explain the present baryon asymmetry.
Dark energy
Main article: Dark energy

Measurements of the redshift–magnitude relation for type Ia supernovae indicate that the expansion of the Universe has been accelerating since the Universe was about half its present age. To explain this acceleration, general relativity requires that much of the energy in the Universe consists of a component with large negative pressure, dubbed "dark energy". Dark energy, though speculative, solves numerous problems. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background indicate that the Universe is very nearly spatially flat, and therefore according to general relativity the Universe must have almost exactly the critical density of mass/energy. But the mass density of the Universe can be measured from its gravitational clustering, and is found to have only about 30% of the critical density.[27] Since theory suggests that dark energy does not cluster in the usual way it is the best explanation for the "missing" energy density. Dark energy also helps to explain two geometrical measures of the overall curvature of the Universe, one using the frequency of gravitational lenses, and the other using the characteristic pattern of the large-scale structure as a cosmic ruler.

Negative pressure is believed to be a property of vacuum energy, but the exact nature and existence of dark energy remains one of the great mysteries of the Big Bang. Possible candidates include a cosmological constant and quintessence. Results from the WMAP team in 2008 are in accordance with a universe that consists of 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter, 4.6% regular matter and less than 1% neutrinos.[26] According to theory, the energy density in matter decreases with the expansion of the Universe, but the dark energy density remains constant (or nearly so) as the Universe expands. Therefore matter made up a larger fraction of the total energy of the Universe in the past than it does today, but its fractional contribution will fall in the far future as dark energy becomes even more dominant.
Dark matter
Main article: Dark matter
A pie chart indicating the proportional composition of different energy-density components of the Universe, according to the best ΛCDM model fits – roughly 95% is in the exotic forms of dark matter and dark energy

During the 1970s and 1980s, various observations showed that there is not sufficient visible matter in the Universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies. This led to the idea that up to 90% of the matter in the Universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic matter. In addition, the assumption that the Universe is mostly normal matter led to predictions that were strongly inconsistent with observations. In particular, the Universe today is far more lumpy and contains far less deuterium than can be accounted for without dark matter. While dark matter has always been controversial, it is inferred by various observations: the anisotropies in the CMB, galaxy cluster velocity dispersions, large-scale structure distributions, gravitational lensing studies, and X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters.[78]

Indirect evidence for dark matter comes from its gravitational influence on other matter, as no dark matter particles have been observed in laboratories. Many particle physics candidates for dark matter have been proposed, and several projects to detect them directly are underway.[79]
Globular cluster age

In the mid-1990s observations of globular clusters appeared to be inconsistent with the Big Bang theory. Computer simulations that matched the observations of the stellar populations of globular clusters suggested that they were about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with the 13.77 billion year age of the Universe. This issue was partially resolved in the late 1990s when new computer simulations, which included the effects of mass loss due to stellar winds, indicated a much younger age for globular clusters.[80] There remain some questions as to how accurately the ages of the clusters are measured, but it is clear that observations of globular clusters no longer appear inconsistent with the Big Bang theory.
Problems

There are generally considered to be three outstanding problems with the Big Bang theory: the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the magnetic monopole problem. The most common answer to these problems is inflationary theory; however, since this creates new problems, other options have been proposed, such as the Weyl curvature hypothesis.[81][82]
Horizon problem
Main article: Horizon problem

The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot travel faster than light. In a Universe of finite age this sets a limit—the particle horizon—on the separation of any two regions of space that are in causal contact.[83] The observed isotropy of the CMB is problematic in this regard: if the Universe had been dominated by radiation or matter at all times up to the epoch of last scattering, the particle horizon at that time would correspond to about 2 degrees on the sky. There would then be no mechanism to cause wider regions to have the same temperature.

A resolution to this apparent inconsistency is offered by inflationary theory in which a homogeneous and isotropic scalar energy field dominates the Universe at some very early period (before baryogenesis). During inflation, the Universe undergoes exponential expansion, and the particle horizon expands much more rapidly than previously assumed, so that regions presently on opposite sides of the observable Universe are well inside each other's particle horizon. The observed isotropy of the CMB then follows from the fact that this larger region was in causal contact before the beginning of inflation.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle predicts that during the inflationary phase there would be quantum thermal fluctuations, which would be magnified to cosmic scale. These fluctuations serve as the seeds of all current structure in the Universe. Inflation predicts that the primordial fluctuations are nearly scale invariant and Gaussian, which has been accurately confirmed by measurements of the CMB.

If inflation occurred, exponential expansion would push large regions of space well beyond our observable horizon.
Flatness problem
Main article: Flatness problem
The overall geometry of the Universe is determined by whether the Omega cosmological parameter is less than, equal to or greater than 1. Shown from top to bottom are a closed Universe with positive curvature, a hyperbolic Universe with negative curvature and a flat Universe with zero curvature.

The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is an observational problem associated with a Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric.[83] The Universe may have positive, negative, or zero spatial curvature depending on its total energy density. Curvature is negative if its density is less than the critical density, positive if greater, and zero at the critical density, in which case space is said to be flat. The problem is that any small departure from the critical density grows with time, and yet the Universe today remains very close to flat.[notes 6] Given that a natural timescale for departure from flatness might be the Planck time, 10−43 seconds, the fact that the Universe has reached neither a heat death nor a Big Crunch after billions of years requires some explanation. For instance, even at the relatively late age of a few minutes (the time of nucleosynthesis), the Universe density must have been within one part in 1014 of its critical value, or it would not exist as it does today.[84]

A resolution to this problem is offered by inflationary theory. During the inflationary period, spacetime expanded to such an extent that its curvature would have been smoothed out. Thus, it is theorized that inflation drove the Universe to a very nearly spatially flat state, with almost exactly the critical density.
Magnetic monopoles
Main article: Magnetic monopole

The magnetic monopole objection was raised in the late 1970s. Grand unification theories predicted topological defects in space that would manifest as magnetic monopoles. These objects would be produced efficiently in the hot early Universe, resulting in a density much higher than is consistent with observations, given that searches have never found any monopoles. This problem is also resolved by cosmic inflation, which removes all point defects from the observable Universe in the same way that it drives the geometry to flatness.[85]
The future according to the Big Bang theory
Main article: Ultimate fate of the universe

Before observations of dark energy, cosmologists considered two scenarios for the future of the Universe. If the mass density of the Universe were greater than the critical density, then the Universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch.[86] Alternatively, if the density in the Universe were equal to or below the critical density, the expansion would slow down but never stop. Star formation would cease with the consumption of interstellar gas in each galaxy; stars would burn out leaving white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Very gradually, collisions between these would result in mass accumulating into larger and larger black holes. The average temperature of the Universe would asymptotically approach absolute zero—a Big Freeze. Moreover, if the proton were unstable, then baryonic matter would disappear, leaving only radiation and black holes. Eventually, black holes would evaporate by emitting Hawking radiation. The entropy of the Universe would increase to the point where no organized form of energy could be extracted from it, a scenario known as heat death.

Modern observations of accelerating expansion imply that more and more of the currently visible Universe will pass beyond our event horizon and out of contact with us. The eventual result is not known. The ΛCDM model of the Universe contains dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant. This theory suggests that only gravitationally bound systems, such as galaxies, will remain together, and they too will be subject to heat death as the Universe expands and cools. Other explanations of dark energy, called phantom energy theories, suggest that ultimately galaxy clusters, stars, planets, atoms, nuclei, and matter itself will be torn apart by the ever-increasing expansion in a so-called Big Rip.[87]
Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory
This is an artist's concept of the Universe expansion, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the Universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development.

While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The equations of classical general relativity indicate a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, although this conclusion depends on several assumptions. Moreover, general relativity must break down before the Universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the would-be singularity.[88]

Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:

Models including the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[89]

Big Bang lattice model states that the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang consists of an infinite lattice of fermions which is smeared over the fundamental domain so it has both rotational, translational, and gauge symmetry. The symmetry is the largest symmetry possible and hence the lowest entropy of any state.[90]

Brane cosmology models in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-Big Bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically. In the latter model the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch and the Universe endlessly cycles from one process to the other.[91][92][93][94]

Eternal inflation, in which universal inflation ends locally here and there in a random fashion, each end-point leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[95][96]

Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in either a much larger and older Universe, or in a multiverse.
Religious and philosophical implications
Main article: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory

As a theory relevant to the origin of the universe, the Big Bang has significant bearing on religion and philosophy.[97][98] As a result, it has become one of the liveliest areas in the discourse between science and religion.[99] Some believe the Big Bang implies a creator,[100] while others argue that Big Bang cosmology makes the notion of a creator superfluous.[98][101]
Source



That should cover it, I think.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old February 3rd, 2013, 12:02 AM
Keiran's Avatar
Keiran
Moshtradamus
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Jersey
Gender: Male
Nature: Careful
Science is used to understand, and then bend nature for the benefit of all. Religion is used to comfort and control, and then bend knees for the benefit of few. Regardless of which beginning is true, science will ensure us a better middle and end by far.

I accept the big bang theory for now, but I'm so burnt out on this subject I'm keeping my post short lol.
__________________
Mod of Trade Corner| Pair | Trainer Information

又 yltfos os kaeps and low 又
Wandering Allowed, Wondering Aloud
Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old February 12th, 2013, 06:07 PM
Toutebelle
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York, USA
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
God made it in seven days.

JUST KIDDING!

Those "seven days" were not days in our reckoning. The days were millions of years. Still, I think He was the one who initiated the whole thing.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links


Advertise here
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 03:23 PM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.