Find an Online Tutor Now

Malik B.

asked • 11/13/12

In regards to the big bang heory, where did the matter come from to have the big bang?

I believe in the creationist theory, my question is posed toward darwinist...

Mark I.

Nice question Malik!!! This has generated lively and passionate debate and for good reasons. When you say "Darwinist" that typically and very commonly means naturalist or atheist. I will return to that point in a second. I think the key point here in this forum is that the Big Bang is not a scientific question. Allow me to explain because all equation break-down at the moment of the Big Bang we arrive at a singularity. A singularity is where all the laws of physics and chemistry break down. Therefore, is it beyond the domain of science. Science, by definition, cannot explore it. What bothers me here and elsewhere is that intelligent people make wild statements: like the Big Bang caused itself. The Big Bang is the name of the event. For example, a car accident occurs. What caused the accident? It would be absurd to say the car accident caused the car accident. Moreover, when scientists say 'we don't know' they mean in terms of science, which is impotent in this area and some of the most important aspects of lives. Science can say nothing about morality/ethics, logic and reason, higher level mathematics, aesthetics, meaning & purpose, or the meaning of semiotics and metaphysics (the reality of the past, other minds, trusting our cognitive faculties, eyewitness testimony). These things cannot be grown in a petry dish, or placed under a microscope or accelerated in the Large Hadron Collider. There is no empirical unit for them like: Newton, m/s^2, kJ, microns and so forth. Moreover, the nature of consciousness, gravity, energy, and dark matter, science doesn't know what they are fundamentally! Moreover. M-theory besides, being a complete mess, and the hypothesis of the multiverse are branches of mathematical metaphysics. As far as 'Darwinism' there was a book published, I believe in the mid-80's called "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders." Moreover, one of the greatest Modern Synthetic Neo-Darwinistic scientists is Dr. Francisco Ayala of UCI who is a devout Catholic: as is Ken Miller, PhD. And, Dr. Francis Collins former head of the human genome project is an evangelical. More importantly Alfred Russell Wallace was and is the forgotten co-discoverer of macro-evolution and had far more field experience than Darwin and had no racist inclinations. But, he spoke of a supreme and 'over ruling intelligence' much to the chagrin and dismay of Darwin. In transition, much to my astonishment the New Atheist has taken some incredible positions. Several has claimed that the universe created itself or 'nothing' created the universe. Or 'aliens' created us (as far as life goes). These are extraordinary and desperate positions. If you look at the data the chances of life and especially advanced life are effectively '0'. I will add a quote... For example, in order to get life and the right heavy elements there has to be at least 3 generations of stars and the uranium and thorium ratio has to peak and be in the right proportions... But so much for 'following the evidence where it leads' and, or facts and reasons.
Report

03/29/20

Mark I.

“More Than a Theory” (Ross, Hugh; Baker Books; Grand Rapids, Michigan; 2009) “A search of the literature published in 2006 uncovered 322 different characteristics for which fine-tuning was needed for simple life to exist on a planet or a moon for at least three billion years. The combined fine-tuning degree revealed that the probability of finding such a planet or moon anywhere within the observable universe (without invoking some kind of miraculous intervention) was one chance in 10282. This probability generously took into account possible dependencies among the different characteristics. It also noted that as many as 1022 planets and 1024 moons might reside in the observable universe. “A scientific literature search completed thirty months later found 676 different characteristics in which fine-tuning was required to allow simple life to exist for more than three billion years on one body. The combined fine-tuning degree implied that the probability of finding such a body (without invoking divine intervention) is one chance in 10556. “During the time between the two evaluations, astronomers discovered an average of twelve new design characteristics per month necessary to make the existence of simple life possible for at least three billion years. Of the 354 newly found design features, over a third were attributes that could not have been exclusively determined at the cosmic creation event. “Unlike the naturalistic and predominant theistic evolution models, RTB’s creation model predicted that astronomers would find much more fine-tuning design evidence for human life than for simple life. At the end of the study search, the list of design traits necessary to make human life possible was 824. The combined fine-tuning degree yielded a probability of only one chance in 101050 for the existence of a body capable of supporting the equivalent of human life anywhere in the observable universe (without invoking any miraculous interventions)” (p243).
Report

03/29/20

5 Answers By Expert Tutors

By:

Michael B. answered • 11/13/12

Tutor
5.0 (149)

I can provide your 'A-HA' moment

Malik B.

Duh, I know what Darwinism is, the opposite of Intelligent Design, I was just juxtaposing for clarity purposes...I thought the Big Bang Theory was the explosion of matter creating the planets...How do you get an explosion if there's no matter to explode?...

Report

11/13/12

Michael B.

It is a common misconception that the Big Bang theory suggests an "explosion" of the sort you are referring to.  The explosion you are referring to is a chemical reaction, which is exactly NOT the type suggested by the Big Bang Theory.  Instead, the Big Bang Theory suggests an "explosion" (for lack of any better word) of space itself.  That is, space is what is exploding, not the matter in it, and in this case "exploding" does NOT mean "blowing up into tiny bits" it means a "massive expansion".  

Think of it like a bubble growing in a pot of boiling water...   There was no bubble there to start with, but the bubble expands nonetheless.  This is obviously a very weak metaphor that doesn't truly correlate to Big Bang spatial expansion, but it might give you the basic concept.

Report

11/13/12

Malik B.

The bubble example, was I know an over simplification, but effective to a laymen to a degree...You sound like you are a Darwinist, and you are dissuading me from my Creationist belief, because I thought as I stated, that matter was a part of the Big Bang theory...Big Bang is an misleading an ambiguous name for what occurred...Thanks for your clarification...

Report

11/13/12

Michael B.

You aren't the only one to think that "Big Bang" is a misleading and ambiguous name...   some very top-tier physicists think the same.  Unfortunately, it is the name it was given when first proposed, and the public has latched on to it.  To change it now would probably cause a lot of confusion.

Also, although I do believe in Darwinism, as there is overwhelming evidence supporting this theory, I'm certainly not trying to dissuade anyone from their own beliefs; I'm simply answering the question.  :)

Report

11/14/12

Chase M.

As my understanding of the Big Bang goes, it is sort of a yo-yo effect.  The universe goes out, after the Big Bang, slows down, then comes back to the singularity, then we have another Big Bang, all taking billions, if not trillions of years to complete one cycle.  This just happens over and over again.

Unforutunately due to our short lifespans, and lack of knowledge, this cannot be proven, as of yet.  For all we know, this may not be the case, there may be mulitple universes in which this is happening simultaneously, or even this may be happening at distant parts of our own universe..  

Report

11/14/12

Michael B.

Chase - you are referring to the "cyclical universe model".  That certainly is one of the theories that has been proposed, but there are MANY theories.  The "standard big bang theory" does not include this concept, however.

Report

11/15/12

Mark D.

The long story short is we don't know yet. What we do observe in the most distant places our telescopes can see is a very hot and dense soup of particles. This soup seems to originate in an even hotter and denser ball of matter that as many models suggest was something called a "singularity." The stuff that made up this really hot and dense matter can be made to come into existence in very small amounts by smacking atoms and part of atoms together at very high speeds. These particle have different properties than the particles that make up most of what the universe as we see it now. The biggest difference being that most of them have more "mass" than their "normal" matter counterparts. Einstein actually published E=mc2 as m=E/c2. The amount of mass is proportional to the Energy in a unit called "Joules" divided by the speed of light squared. What makes the Sun shine is a very small amount of matter being released as mostly very high energy light as four atoms of hydrogen are converted into a single atom of helium.
Report

10/05/19

Stanton D. answered • 04/21/15

Tutor
4.6 (42)

Tutor to Pique Your Sciences Interest

Michael B.

Dave,

Not being a physicist, I'm not sure I can give an accurate answer, but I can tell you about some of the things that I have read in the past.

I believe that the most common answer is that there wasn't matter, but there WAS a LOT of energy.  Because of Einstein's E=mc2 equation, we know that matter and energy are really just two forms of the same thing (in much the same way that ice and steam are both two forms of water).  A portion of that initial energy ("the steam") condensed into a more compact form ("the ice") that we call matter.

So the next logical question is...    where did all of the energy come from?  I don't think there is an accepted answer to this yet, but there are several theories.  One theory called derives from "M-theory" which is an extension on top of string theory.  This theory says that our universe "lives in" or "lives on" or "is" (I'm not sure which is more accurate) a "brane" which itself exists within a larger "existence" of branes, and they are "floating around" in some sense.  The theory I'm thinking of says that somehow, two of these branes collided.  Think what happens when two things collide in our universe - lot's of energy, right?  Well just imagine these two "bigger than the universe" things colliding - this could produce an "extreme" amount of energy which, this theory says, was the seed for all of the energy that we have in our universe today.

If this seems like too much energy to be possible, then step outside your little box and look at the bigger picture...   We don't know how big the universe is.  It only takes a little bit of imagination to realize that there could be a "universe of universes" and we would have very little way of knowing about it.  Our "tiny" universe is all we know.  We are like little tiny algae in a very big ocean - do you think the algae, if they could think, would ever know anything about us?

Report

11/15/12

DAVE E.

tutor

so where did those things that collided come from???

Report

11/15/12

Michael B.

Dave,

Answer 1: I don't know, and I don't think anyone currently has any good theories about it, but I could be and likely am wrong.

Answer 2: It sounds like you are trying to drag me into a theological argument about the existence of God.  (Your line of questioning is the same one everyone uses when doing this...  Q: where did X come from?  A: Well, it came from Y.  Q: Oh yeah - then where did Y come from?...  ad nauseam.)  Please don't.  I'm not arguing religion here, simply providing the scientific view, and probably not even a very accurate one of those.

 

Report

11/16/12

DAVE E.

tutor

Michael my question as to where did the original matter come from has nothing to do with religion.. If we don t know where the matter originated how do we know it existed?? But it does raise the question regarding the existence of  a creator.

Report

11/17/12

Michael B.

We DON'T know that it existed.  At this time, it is a very speculative theory.

Report

11/17/12

DAVE E.

tutor

Sounds like you are saying we just don t know where the matter came from that exploded and became the universe or universes

Report

11/18/12

Daniel O.

That's about right, Dave - we don't know exactly where the energy came from. We really don't know much about what existed (or didn't exist) before the big bang, other than speculative theories.

There are some things that current physics just can not explain, like what goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole, or events prior to the big bang.

Report

11/18/12

Harry D.

The conditions, parts and whatevers that led to what is understood as the Big Bang is, for some people insurmountable;(ie Someone, however intellectually vast, did this. They believe there are planes of reality far beyond what we will EVER perceive from OUR plane of existence...a 2-dimensional dude will NEVER know me.
 
For some, the complexities of the Universe give rise to a Super-Intelligent Personage(I for myself hold this to be self-evident; others might question my sanity based on it)
 
Report

10/04/13

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Ask a question for free

Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.

OR

Find an Online Tutor Now

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.