TED Conversations

stan hummel

This conversation is closed.

Does anyone understand the Big Bang theory?

It is said that the theory of relativity is understood by several people (or a few more)... but i'm curious if anyone understands the Big Bang theory (+Infation). because it isn't so obvious at all.
why i think so, don't know exactly... just suppose... but assure nobody is going to refute this theory! just a few small doubts.
but the real problem is... do we really fully understand what it all might mean?
however (for facilitation) we won't be considering fates of the entire universe.
rather more interesting is what happens with us... real issue is the fate of our lost mind.
At the beginning we have something very small. our future universe is not the size of galaxy, earth, grain of sand... is much more tiny... just a POINT!
But the essence of this consideration is not vanity or divinity that point.
The real problem is moment (or thought process) in which the Real Universe turns into a Mathematical Universe.
know, it isn't easy to understand with such a modest possibilities of our mind.
however, if seems to us it's absolutely not a problem, just a logical consequence... so we probably have already crossed the border! but it's quite other story!
so how we are supposed to understand the universe when we don't have the slightest idea what we want to understand?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 14 2013: BB is a scientific version of " let it be light !"
    You are not supposed to understand it, it needs belief.
    • thumb
      Jun 15 2013: I agree. What you are suggesting does involve a violation of the Scientific Method which disqualifies the BBT from being called Science and puts it in the category of Spiritual, or Metphysical.
      • Jun 17 2013: Edward,

        I know that you said that you rather not see me commenting on your comments to others. But, wouldn't you think that if scientists work on the Big Bang theory then the BBT is scientific? That maybe there's something you don't understand about science?

        I mean, if I were out of science, and I suspected that something is not scientific, yet I knew that loads and loads of people working in a scientific discipline work on that, I would rather consider investigating the issue carefully before affirming in my outsider ignorance that such thing is not scientific. Some scientists might even try and explain that to you should your answer prove too hard to find. But just affirming it from little knowledge looks rather flabbergasting.

        I will not try and explain because our experience has been that my comments are mostly irrelevant to you. Therefore this is just an invitation for you to think about it.

        See ya, and now I leave you alone. Sorry if this disturbs your peace.

        P.S. By the way, natasha is quite wrong.
        • thumb
          Jun 17 2013: For the record [off-topic]-- I DID NOT say I do not want you to comment. I cannot dictate who comments about what. What I said was I hope you don't mind if I do not respond to your comments about my comments made expressly to a third party. I am presently following that personal policy. Thank you for understanding Obey. Continue seeking truth.
      • thumb
        Jun 17 2013: Agreed with Entropy... regardless whether you reply, I think that maybe you just don't understand the scientific method fully. Because the big bang theory properly follows just as anything else.
        • thumb
          Jun 17 2013: 100% agreed sir. Many people do agree with Entropy (no pun intended). I do not understand the BBT fully. I will not challenge the idea that you and Entropy have a better understanding than I do of the imagined (aka theoretical) mechanisms which allowed a pre-existing, primeval "atom" to suddenly split open and spew forth its millions of billions of trillions of tons of matter and energy causing the Cosmos to be born. This was not a typical explosion because it had no single location in space. It happened everywhere at the same time which means the Universe has no center and looks the same from wherever you are in it!! This characteristic is called “homogenous”. Also, the BBT asks us to accept the idea that everything is always in motion because the universe is constantly “expanding” like raisins in a loaf of bread, coins glued on a stretching rubber band, dots on the surface of an inflating balloon, or frequency shifts in the light from distant stars. I do challenge is the assertion that the BBT explains in a full and scientific manner the What, When, Where,and How of the creation and operation of the Universe. For such an explanation to be accepted one must act on Faith, not on scientific evidence, because there is no such evidence for MUCH of the Theory. As for my understanding of the Scientific Method, it is a prescribed investigative procedure which consists of: Observation; Measurement; and Experimentation to formulate, test, and modify hypotheses. It includes 6 essential steps: 1) state goal; 2) acquire all available relevant information; 3) state expected outcome; 4) demonstrate actual outcome; 5) record all results; 6) compare expected outcome (3) to actual outcome (6). Please advise if that is not correct. The BBT does not "properly follow just as anything else", as you claim, the Scientific Method.
    • thumb
      Jun 15 2013: Although its basis is what we observe and can deduce. Like cosmic microwave background, and the expanding universe, looking back through time with the Hubble telescope etc. Honestly I don't know enough about it to know how confident scientists are in the various elements of it.

      The Genesis creation story is just one of many and may have been influenced or borrowed from Mesopotamian culture such as a flood story .

      Most cultures or even tribes seem have traditions fulfilling a similar role - explaining how what they thought of as everything and people got here. Whether it involves a garden and making a women from a rib, or a rainbow serpent, I'm sure not any of these would be as reliable as something developed with the benefits of modern science.

      Like we now know our sun is just a star, one of billions in this galaxy, and there are billions of galaxies.
      That the earth orbits the sun and that the rotation of the earth causes the day night cycle.
      The sun is a giant nuclear fusion reactor.
      That there is a force we call gravity and atoms of various elements etc.
      That there are 8 planets (sorry Pluto) and a whole bunch of TNO's.
      That the earth is about 3.6 billion years old and the universe is about 13.6 billion years old.
      While we were not here to see it all, I suggest there is some basis behind all this.

      Most creation myths understandably have the Earth and humans at the centre of it all. The evidence we are now aware of suggests our planet and place in the universe is not so central as primitive peoples once speculated.

      Also, the hypothesis has evolved to the theory we have today. If new information supports improvements or a complete overhaul what we have today will no longer be the prevailing model.

      Whereas the two stories in Genesis don't change to conform with our improving understanding of the universe. We are stuck with liquid water and plants before the sun is created as one of the two great lights, and the question of incest with Adam and Eves kids

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.