Big Bang!!!

[Black36]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

[Sweetdeath]

Could you rephrase that question, please? o_o

[Black36]

Could you rephrase that question, please? o_o

What's confusing?

[Stevil]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

Scientists haven't worked out exactly what caused the big bang yet.
My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.

Can you please explain how the big bang needs a big banger?

[Black36]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

Scientists haven't worked out exactly what caused the big bang yet.
My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.

Can you please explain how the big bang needs a big banger?

I love the naturalist of the gaps explanation. "Scientists haven't yet discovered what we already know to be a naturalist explanation." A bit circular.

Well, without a big banger one must then believe that something comes from nothing. Not to "scientific".

[Stevil]

I love the naturalist of the gaps explanation. "Scientists haven't yet discovered what we already know to be a naturalist explanation." A bit circular.

Well, without a big banger one must then believe that something comes from nothing. Not to "scientific".

You are acting trollish, if you want a real conversation then please act in a more honest manner otherwise I will find it a waste of time discussing this with you.

As you know I did not say that we know a naturalist explaination. My key word was speculation.

[Black36]

I love the naturalist of the gaps explanation. "Scientists haven't yet discovered what we already know to be a naturalist explanation." A bit circular.

Well, without a big banger one must then believe that something comes from nothing. Not to "scientific".

You are acting trollish, if you want a real conversation then please act in a more honest manner otherwise I will find it a waste of time discussing this with you.

As you know I did not say that we know a naturalist explaination. My key word was speculation.

Ok then, what type of discovery are you anticipating?

[Black36]

My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.

So, what caused or organized this possible scenario. If one were to regress to the original cause, what other cause could there be than an un-caused, first cause? Or, do you believe in an infinite regress?

[Tank]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

Scientists haven't worked out exactly what caused the big bang yet.
My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.

Can you please explain how the big bang needs a big banger?

I love the naturalist of the gaps explanation. "Scientists haven't yet discovered what we already know to be a naturalist explanation." A bit circular.

Well, without a big banger one must then believe that something comes from nothing. Not to "scientific".

So you are saying that something cannot come from nothing?

Why would this be so given the The Force of Empty Space

According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not empty, but teeming with virtual particles that constantly wink in and out of existence. One strange consequence of this sea of activity is the Casimir effect: Two flat metal surfaces automatically attract one another if they get close enough. The Casimir force is so weak that it has rarely been detected at all, but now a team reports in the 23 November PRL that they have made the most precise measurement ever of the phenomenon. They claim that their technique, using an atomic force microscope, has the capacity to test the strangest aspects of the Casimir effect, ones that have never before been tested...

[Stevil]

My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.

So, what caused or organized this possible scenario. If one were to regress to the original cause, what other cause could there be than an un-caused, first cause? Or, do you believe in an infinite regress?

All explainations are only speculation. We do not know with any level of certainty the details leading upto or at the exact time of the big bang event.

My speculation is that over eons, sufficient energy has be gathered into a blackhole, by gravity.
The energy might have come into existence by quantum fluctuations or may simply be an eternal state of pure space, we don't know how energy comes into existence and remains in existence.

[Tank]

B36

Common sense "Something cannot come from nothing." works fine in the world of normal human experience, but the same cannot be said for the highly counter intuitive world of the sub-atomic particle. The theory of Quantum Mechanics has been tested over and over again and has proved to be accurate and highly predictive. So predictive in fact that one of the largest, most complex and most expensive scientific instruments ever made, the Large Hadron Collider, has been built to test its claims.

So applying common sense is not always the right tool to discover what is actually going on.

[xSilverPhinx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

What physicists mean when they say 'nothing' in this context. You're essentially throwing out strawman arguments.

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

[Black36]

My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.

So, what caused or organized this possible scenario. If one were to regress to the original cause, what other cause could there be than an un-caused, first cause? Or, do you believe in an infinite regress?

All explainations are only speculation. We do not know with any level of certainty the details leading upto or at the exact time of the big bang event.

My speculation is that over eons, sufficient energy has be gathered into a blackhole, by gravity.
The energy might have come into existence by quantum fluctuations or may simply be an eternal state of pure space, we don't know how energy comes into existence and remains in existence.

I am not asking about the what you believe to be the means. You keep giving means. How could have your scenario or means have begun without an uncaused first cause?

[Black36]

B36

Common sense "Something cannot come from nothing." works fine in the world of normal human experience, but the same cannot be said for the highly counter intuitive world of the sub-atomic particle. The theory of Quantum Mechanics has been tested over and over again and has proved to be accurate and highly predictive. So predictive in fact that one of the largest, most complex and most expensive scientific instruments ever made, the Large Hadron Collider, has been built to test its claims.

So applying common sense is not always the right tool to discover what is actually going on.

Quantum theories only work in quantum math scenarios.

"So applying common sense is not always the right tool to discover what is actually going on." You're going to stand by this statement?

[Recusant]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

If by that somewhat suggestive phrase, you mean a cause of the event, then the simple answer from my understanding of the scientific perspective, is that it is unknown whether there is something that we would understand as a "cause" for the big bang. We haven't observed the origin of any universe, and what can be hypothesized about the origin of our own universe can only go as far back (with current science) as the Planck era. As far as is known, this is a unique event, so to say that we "know" that there was necessarily a "cause" as we understand causality would be unfounded. One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place. Causality as we understand it is a function of time, and if time didn't exist, then neither did causality. Thus the question of what "caused" the big bang actually isn't a reasonable question. That doesn't mean we can't ask it, but  expecting a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question may be a bit much.

Even if that is the case, scientists are still working on it, as you might imagine. One possibility has to do with a hypothesis that something like what we know as space-time has always existed. If that were the case, then the universe might have arisen as a result of what are known as quantum fluctuations; matter appearing out of nothing and returning to nothing. If that were the situation, then all it would take is a quantum fluctuation which happened to be unbalanced in some way, which could have given rise to the primordial singularity.

Science may eventually discover whether it's possible to extend causality to include the big bang, but with the present state of knowledge about the big bang, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that it is.

Your question, in other words, is about something which science is unable to answer right now.  There may have been a cause, as we understand it, or maybe not. There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance.