[Guest]

So there was this tiny spec that went bang - BANG!

How? If I rember rightly it got to a trillion degrees and that's when things hit the fan

Q1 - where did the spec come from

Q2 - how did it get to that heat, it started cold right or it started hot

I understand the Fred Hoyle physics (anti big bang theory - he he it was FH who used the term big bang mockingly, now it is THE term))

I have other questions too, - but lets start here - crack this for me and i am on board the Big bang theory - otherwise I'll watch this space till the next theory comes along - not going with the regenerating bang after bang after bang theory by a long shot

[unreality]

yeah I'm an atheist but I have no clue what the Big Bang theory is, probably cuz it's never been explained to me and I haven't looked into it

ADParker can answer our curiousities, I'm sure ;D hehe

[Guest]

that was quick - I can absorb the info if the deails are not too chemical, but the begining of the begining has not yet come to light - intended pun for the god did it theorists

Maybe it has been explained somewhere and I have missed it - skipped through a lot of simon singhs big bang theory

Q3 will be the size of the infinite growing universe - eg where did the space come from (what was there before space) - punning my own name i guess

[akaslickster]

Big bang theory? Is that ever a heated argument I had before. It was a good try at least. Maybe some day will come.

Edited August 9, 2008 by akaslickster

[unreality]

it's a good TV show ;D

Edited August 9, 2008 by unreality

[Guest]

Big bang theory? Is that ever a heated argument I had before. It was a good try at least. Maybe some day will come.

This is how I understand the theory to be, there is a infinate large amount of mass in a infinitaly small place. Which exploded, spreading mass all through the universe and continues to expand. Not sure how they explain the trillion degrees thing.. they probably just guessing like most other sciences

[Guest]

This is how I understand the theory to be, there is a infinate large amount of mass in a infinitaly small place. Which exploded, spreading mass all through the universe and continues to expand. Not sure how they explain the trillion degrees thing.. they probably just guessing like most other sciences

What does it expand into - where did the mass come from? - otherwise god did it element is in the equation - how big was space before it became the universe as we know it - sounds random to say that we can take infinity and double it

on that note - and so to bed

[Guest]

What does it expand into - where did the mass come from? - otherwise god did it element is in the equation - how big was space before it became the universe as we know it - sounds random to say that we can take infinity and double it

on that note - and so to bed

No one has answers for all these questions, Which is why I dont believe it!

[akaslickster]

No one has answers for all these questions, Which is why I dont believe it!

That is what she said.

[Guest]

No one has answers for all these questions, Which is why I dont believe it!

It is all theory and best guess - but you are welcome to make a suggestion, add a theory using your best guess.

[Guest]

Okay okay - the first response to this is "ADParker can answer it"?!

You trying to give me a big head? Not to mention the pressure!

So there was this tiny spec that went bang - BANG!

Okay first off I'm no cosmologist, or a scientist at all. And it's not really my string suit either. But sure I am sure to find a few things to say, at least to get the ball rolling a bit.

First things first - Wikipedia is your friend: Big Bang

The big bang is better described as a Rapid expansion event - not an explosion.

As you have said (below) the term Big Bang" was initially used as a jibe, an insult, to mock. And just like "Yankee Doodle" the butts of the joke had the all to take the label and say "Hey I like that, let's keep it!"

It's a good way to respond to such insults - take it and use it for good. Also it is a rather amusing thing to note that astrophysicists (unlike many other branches of science) have a tendency to like simple little terms for their things. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a great video on that (YouTube I think), can't find it at the moment though. Things like this:

What do you call a star that in its death throws, expands rapidly to an enormous size and in the process shifts more to the red spectrum in its colouring? - A Red Giant.

How about a star that collapses sucking everything remotely close to it into it, including light rendering it completely invisible (dark in the blackness of space) as no light escapes? A Black Hole

As you can see in the Wikipedia page, it is an extrapolation of data that leads, almost inescapably, that the universe is expanding, and did so from what at one time was a very small size indeed.

How? If I rember rightly it got to a trillion degrees and that's when things hit the fan

No, not quite - It was incredibly (infinitely?) hot , and infinitely dense. Then it "went all kablooey". Who knows why? It's a very difficult question. Made all more perplexing due to most of the common laws of physics falling apart at that point.

The big problem, and thus area of investigation, is that we need the laws in general physics PLUS those of Quantum physics. But unfortunately we have not yet come to a satisfactory method of combining the two. They both work beautifully in there spheres of influence. But the Big bang and in the "Planck epoch" immediately before it we come across a conundrum - both spheres are somehow inextricably combined - quantum and general (tiny and huge) physics need to be utilised in unison. Unfortunately our current understanding of these do not allow it When they try they get weird meaningless results - like probabilities of infinity percent! No, really the do - what the hel does that mean?!

What is needed, but yet to be uncovered, devised, is a "unified theory", one that combines it all into one single science. At the moment we have two different ones, each incredibly accurate and successful, but in this area we need to make them one. Find the "missing link" you could say (but I wouldn't advise it)

Q1 - where did the spec come from

Dunno.

Big question, lost of hypotheses and the like, but nothing too concrete. A lot of discussion and disagreement as well.

Q2 - how did it get to that heat, it started cold right or it started hot

Hot apparently. Heat of course just means that the atoms (or subatomic particles perhaps in this case) are moving about a lot - "excited molecules" = Hot, no moving atoms/molecules = cold.

That is how "Absolute Zero" is measured by the way - the point at which no molecular "jiggling" occurs.

Imagine everything that is in, in fact "is", the universe. You would imagine that to be very intense right? Very dense, a lot of pressure, and that equals a lot of heat - it's why stars burn for instance - huge pressures lead to huge heat and nuclear fusion.

I understand the Fred Hoyle physics (anti big bang theory - he he it was FH who used the term big bang mockingly, now it is THE term))

Yup (above) Funny when people do that eh?

I have other questions too, - but lets start here - crack this for me and i am on board the Big bang theory - otherwise I'll watch this space till the next theory comes along - not going with the regenerating bang after bang after bang theory by a long shot

The regenerating bang? Oh right, that is just a postulation, not on the bang, but on what came before - which is still very much an open question. What it would about to is that universes expand, contract and expand (bang) again; an interesting hypothesis, but nothing more at this stage. Just an idea floated out there. Something of great value in this cutting edge science, sometimes such wild ideas give rise to novel areas of investigation, not always in the direction one might expect either.

There are at present a lot of ideas, speculations about the details of the Big Bang model. Especially on what happened before. But we really what amounts to a "new physics" if we are to really crack that one. These include numerous suggestions that the model needs to be revised in various ways. I won't gto into the details, because I don't know or pretend to understand most of them, and a lot of them have to do with how the rapid expansion got started - how the big bang happened rather than if it did or not. Although there is some of that as well, up to a point.

All you really have to understand from your (our) perspective at the moment is that the general Big Bang Model is the best, most accurate, most consistent with and supported by all the evidence and observation we as of yet have available, and most successfully predictive, model that exists for the universe as it is, as it has been, and will be, and the nature its earliest beginnings that we have available (well except for that pesky first Plank epoch - which only amounts to a period of 10^-43 seconds, but due to the break down in physics at that point, who knows how much could have gone on in that time - actually time itself seems to have been an emerging dimension itself back then - so it gets weird) .

As such you don't have to "believe" it, this isn't religion, its not a matter of accepting any thing as a doctrine to be believed as truth or rejected as false - real science, reality, is not so black and white. But you should realise it for what it is; the best, most plausible answer we humans have.

That is how science works and how it should be taken; little if anything as just believed as true, but rather accepted as the best answer (theory etc.) as our human understanding and ever continuing endeavour to lean as much as we can about Life, the Universe and everything, we have. As a result of this acceptance rather than belief, we are left open to the acceptance that as new evidence and scientific endeavours arise and develop, any of these accepted truths may well change, and hence our understanding, our approximation of what the universe etc. is really like, will grow.

[Guest]

Thanks AD P - will read up some more

I need to find away to accept the - first there was space, with a spec, then cooling or warming, temperatures I cant concieve and a large amount of matter just about everywhere you look - I'm using a childs eyes to question things to keep it simple.

Difficult part to take in - cold = atom not moving and heat - atom moving - how was the spec so hot and jet in such a confined space - am I missing something? It is so hot yet so confined when it should have been the largest thing in we cld ever know, atoms so hot that they are unable to be taking up tiny spaces

Wld like to find an acceptable theory that means we can move forward (well, backward actually), an explanation for the spec, heat, then expansion (when it should be contraction while cooling to a trillion degrees). I'm gonna chew it over some more.

Anyone else reading, studying, pzzling on this subject - give some news pls - I'll look at wiki in a cpl a days

[Guest]

Thanks AD P - will read up some more

I need to find away to accept the - first there was space, with a spec, then cooling or warming, temperatures I cant conceive and a large amount of matter just about everywhere you look - I'm using a Childs eyes to question things to keep it simple.

When we look at things like this we are all children - Be a questioning child though (as I see you are), one of wonderment and a true desire to understand - not just to have an answer (that's easy) but to truly understand. But on top of that one must also try to be a grown up - one who realises that we can't always have the answers on a plate before us, and some may never come at all, no matter how hard we wish for it or how hard we try, but those that do will fill us with awe, and those that require the greatest effort to obtain will provide the greatest wonder of all, for they will be hard won prizes in our collection. And through our true honest efforts we can be assured that what we do learn in this manner is as close to, and representative of, the truth of reality as we can possibly hope for

(and who says we Reasonists are cold emotionless reason fixated drones? )

One little interesting note: First there was not space; what we call space - well what we now call (thanks to Albert Einstein) Spacetime - the three spacial dimensions and the fourth time dimension - were contained within that spec - or more rightly are emergent properties of the Rapid expansion event of that spec

What did the spec expand into?? You might well ask. Nothing apparently. There was nothing for which it to expand into. When we say the universe is expanding, we really mean it, the universe is not expanding to fill more of the space in which it exists, but Space itself is expanding!

I know - Science gets weird on those outer limits. You are on the raggedy edge now my friend, the further you look, the more you learn, the weirder the answers, and resulting futher questions, will get. Don't despair in this; embrace it. It's cool; enjoy the ride

You put it as a child (an excellent analogy,) another one I like (not really an analogy at all really) is that we are trying to discover the deepest secrets of the universe with brains and minds "designed" for hunting antelope across the African Savannah. We are simply not equipped (because from that perspective we don't need to be) to fathom or naturally grasp the quantum small, astronomically large, nor the very fast (speed of light type stuff) or very slow for that matter.

For instance an atom is made up mostly of nothing (tiny nucleus with electrons insane distances, relatively, away, with a whole lot of nothin' between) so when you look at a rock, most of what is before you is empty space. But you can't pass through it, and it would be foolish to try, so it is appropriate that our eyes see it as a solid, even though that is not truly (on all levels) what it is.

From an evolutionary perspective we see in the way that we do (which is not exactly as reality is) and only at levels that we do, because that is what is best for our ancestors survival, those with eyes that see rocks as solid are less likely to run full tilt into them for instance

Difficult part to take in - cold = atom not moving and heat - atom moving - how was the spec so hot and jet in such a confined space - am I missing something? It is so hot yet so confined when it should have been the largest thing in we cld ever know, atoms so hot that they are unable to be taking up tiny spaces

I know - weird stuff. Don't fully understand most of it myself. Basically pressure causes rapid movement in atoms (etc. - get to that) in physics the term is "excited" and there is a reason for that, it is as if they are all excited in anticipation - think of it not so much as zooming about so much as vibrating, which as you know from "middle world" (that's things more in keeping with our scale of things) examples tend to heat up when they vibrate.

It's all Thermodynamics. But I realise that it is an odd concept to grasp - as you get deeper into science you will find a lot of these things; you think you might understand (at least a little) of what something is, like heat, then BLAM it is revealed as something quite different. "Heat is not caused by but actually IS movement of atoms?! -Come on!!" But it is - the science confirms it. Don't be too concerned; the earliest scientists to come across this reacted in the exact some way. And they are doing the exact same thing in quantum physics as we speak. There is a saying in that field - "If you think you understand quantum physics then you don't understand quantum physics." No one does, not even quantum physicists - It's just too darn weird, and seems to make no sense whatsoever (You get to things like there being 11 dimensions not just 4 and things like that - and that's not even the really weird stuff) but damn it, it works - the calculations that come out of it work, and work to an almost frightening degree of accuracy. The equivalent to calculating the width of the continental United States to the accuracy of a single hair's width!

I said I would get to "atoms etc.": You see, whatever was in that "singularity" or whatever it is (this is where current physics starts falling apart remember.) wasn't atoms. The first atoms formed after the Big Bang - Pretty much all Hydrogen with a little Helium. So whatever was in that spec was whatever atoms are made of - quarks perhaps -Heh I like quarks; they come in 6 "flavours" (yes they are really called that!) called:

Up

Down

Top

Bottom

Charm and

Strange

No really they are And no the names don’t mean much of anything except to differentiate them from one another.

Wld like to find an acceptable theory that means we can move forward (well, backward actually), an explanation for the spec, heat, then expansion (when it should be contraction while cooling to a trillion degrees). I'm gonna chew it over some more.

Ha! Who wouldn't; this (and the Universal theory, or "theory of everything" as Einstein called it, and spent the last 30 years of his life trying to discover, which looks to be a requirement for this anyway) is the "Holy Grail" of Physics at the moment - The Big one.

Who ever cracks it (sometimes this potential scientist is referred to as "the Darwin of Physics") will BOOM! get instant fame, Nobel prize, grants, career opportunities up the wazoo, the works!

[Guest]

The big bang theory my eye!! ok think about it...this theory is what evolutionists and atheists ( im not sayin all! just people who dont want to believe that God created the world- no offense to atheists) developed to explain the beginning of the universe through mere chance. Picture this- say you need to clean your room and you decide to do it with a hand grenade...so you pull the pin and toss the grenade into your room...and wow! your room has blown up into order and cleanleness...your bed is made, carpet is clean,ect...Now, picture the entire universe and the evolution of all life resulting over billions of years developing from merely a very large "Bang". How rational can that be?!? Where can science go if it is founded on such theory?

[Guest]

As ADParker (very adequately, I thought) explained, "Bang" is a bit of a misnomer and was originally used as a put down for the theory. As ADParker said, current physics theories break down as we get back into the event itself, but then again, the state of matter and energy at that time were in a condition that cannot be reproduced or even accurately modeled with the technology currently available, so until the "Theory of Everything" is found, we have to go off of what we can find from the point of the Big Bang forward, which is extremely accurately explained by the theory. I don't have the technical know-how of ADParker so I leave his arguments to stand for themselves. However, there were a few things I wanted to add.

First, I fail to see how evolution directly relates to the Big Bang theory, although I admit that I find that both theories build off each other with the whole creation of the solar system 5 billion years ago (and the evolutionary development of life from that time forward) eventually linking back to the Big Bang chronologically. I would say that they are not inextricably linked which is clear because some evolutionists don't believe the Big Bang and vice versa. In fact, the discovery that the Universe had a beginning was originally thought of as a reason to believe in a Creator. So I fail to see why evolution is being dragged into this discussion.

As to the hand grenade I have no reply, largely because I fail to understand the analogy in its entirety. Unless it is trying to describe the theory as completely ludicrous in which case I think that this argument would have read better: fusebox monkey, happy trout.

It makes about as much sense to me. If there was a different intention, please enlighten me. (I don't mean to imply any disrespect, but I really don't understand it at all.)

What I really wanted to say though relates to mass and energy and some of the questions that LIS posed. One thing that a professor of an astronomy class on this subject pointed out to me was about Einstein's famous equation: E = mc²

E-energy equals m-mass times (c-speed of light) squared. This simple equation indicates a relation between mass and energy, that much is obvious. Not necessarily as obvious is the fact that it implies a proportionality between mass and energy meaning, they're not just related, they are the same thing. And that is not shown better anywhere better than at the very beginning during that Great Expansion. The heat and pressure were so high that as ADParker stated, atoms and subatomic particles as we know them today didn't exist. They weren't in their mass form, rather, they were in a form of pure energy, that as things expanded and cooled, "condensed" (for lack of a better word) into their known forms, first electrons, followed by protons and then the combined proton-electron, the neutron. From all of this, the rest of the Universe and matter developed.

In any case, that's the gist of what I took away from the beginning of the Universe in addition to what ADParker has already said. It's really amazing what we can learn and have learned from discoveries of this kind and to discount them out of hand without trying to understand them is doing science a great disservice.

[Guest]

Picture this- say you need to clean your room and you decide to do it with a hand grenade...so you pull the pin and toss the grenade into your room...and wow! your room has blown up into order and cleanleness...your bed is made, carpet is clean,ect...

Uhhh...I'm curious as to how a grenade blowing up in your room would make it cleaner than it was before. Besides, the universe isn't clean and orderly, it's the exact opposite! This really isn't a good analogy to the Big Bang.

[unreality]

The big bang theory my eye!! ok think about it...this theory is what evolutionists and atheists ( im not sayin all! just people who dont want to believe that God created the world- no offense to atheists)

first of all, I do take offense to this. You don't want to believe Zeus created the world. You don't want to believe Allah created the world. Your religion, whatever it may be, is not special in anyway, it just so happens that you were raised that way, and accept it as fact. Atheists don't "not want to believe in God", we have unsheathed the ludicrous teachings of our family/ancestors and seen the truth behind all the lies are rediculous holy books and doctrine-centric religions. Not to be offensive to you, but it's theist that "believe", it's atheists that "don't believe." It's not that we don't "want" to believe, it's that we know, to a 99% likelihood, that such paradoxical deities do not exist. Religion is invented, ran, split, ended, and taken advantage of entirely by humanity- no gods involved

developed to explain the beginning of the universe through mere chance. Picture this- say you need to clean your room and you decide to do it with a hand grenade...so you pull the pin and toss the grenade into your room...and wow! your room has blown up into order and cleanleness...your bed is made, carpet is clean,ect...Now, picture the entire universe and the evolution of all life resulting over billions of years developing from merely a very large "Bang". How rational can that be?!? Where can science go if it is founded on such theory?

that's a horribe analogy, as others have pointed out. You obviously have no understanding of the actual theory, and just take it from the name, "Big Bang", and haven't researched further

[Guest]

The big bang theory my eye!! ok think about it...this theory is what evolutionists and atheists ( im not sayin all! just people who dont want to believe that God created the world- no offense to atheists) developed to explain the beginning of the universe through mere chance. Picture this- say you need to clean your room and you decide to do it with a hand grenade...so you pull the pin and toss the grenade into your room...and wow! your room has blown up into order and cleanleness...your bed is made, carpet is clean,ect...Now, picture the entire universe and the evolution of all life resulting over billions of years developing from merely a very large "Bang". How rational can that be?!? Where can science go if it is founded on such theory?

lol funny analogy. I just realized that this could actually work if you did it enough times. Like maybe 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times?

Eventually the room would end up perfect if it was arranged correctly and the grenade was thrown in the right spot.

Edit: Wish I could clean my room that way

Edited August 11, 2008 by pw0nzd

[unreality]

haha pw0nzd

[Guest]

lol funny analogy. I just realized that this could actually work if you did it enough times. Like maybe 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times?

Eventually the room would end up perfect if it was arranged correctly and the grenade was thrown in the right spot.

Edit: Wish I could clean my room that way

it wld work for my nephews room - btw - it's order from chaos, someone hears the bang and cleans up the roon - only now they have to put in new windows and fixtures too prob

[Guest]

asside from the god did it principal aka we dont know - lets leave that out of it and stick to the physics if you dont mind folks

Thanks again AD P - had most of that from another source and the big bang book - but sure it should be the RAPID EXPANSION THEORY - but the big bang title is a crowd puller and that will bring in some odd remarks i'm sure

I accept a lot of the quality theory down to the quarks of various kinds - but cant put to one side the very very begining of what ever was first - what was it - has anyone come across anything to point to the start being warm or cold - i have no view yet on which it cld be but it is another huge leap of faith to accept it was all there as hotter than we cld imagine and cooled - why not hte other way round

Where did the plasmic type state start from, where did it come from - lets not try to guess the size of this spec - mable, golfball, football - as small as it was why did it start there or how did it get to there before R E T

[Guest]

The big bang theory my eye!! ok think about it...this theory is what evolutionists and atheists ( im not sayin all! just people who dont want to believe that God created the world- no offense to atheists) developed to explain the beginning of the universe through mere chance. Picture this- say you need to clean your room and you decide to do it with a hand grenade...so you pull the pin and toss the grenade into your room...and wow! your room has blown up into order and cleanleness...your bed is made, carpet is clean,ect...Now, picture the entire universe and the evolution of all life resulting over billions of years developing from merely a very large "Bang". How rational can that be?!? Where can science go if it is founded on such theory?

Ooh the childish Order from Chaos crap - It entails a complete lack of understanding of the Big Bang Model (It's a model, not a theory) and the remarkable science behind it. It's based on the observations of observable reality, not your cherished fairy tale. God or no God the model stands, as it is supported by the evidence.

But no matter - at least I'm not banned

[Guest]

First, I fail to see how evolution directly relates to the Big Bang theory, although I admit that I find that both theories build off each other with the whole creation of the solar system 5 billion years ago (and the evolutionary development of life from that time forward) eventually linking back to the Big Bang chronologically. I would say that they are not inextricably linked which is clear because some evolutionists don't believe the Big Bang and vice versa. In fact, the discovery that the Universe had a beginning was originally thought of as a reason to believe in a Creator. So I fail to see why evolution is being dragged into this discussion.

Right Two things there:

1. The relation in the Creationist’s mind seems to be largely due to One Kent Hovind, a creationist apologist, now serving a ten year jail sentence for fraud (among other things.) He came up with a list of "types of evolution" which went from the origins of the universe to microevolution - don't get me started - which he made for a Chick Tract called Big Daddy?

Check it out, it's the list the strawman version of a science teacher gives - it's really quite terrible

2, Yep; back in the realm of real science, the Theory of Evolution has been recognised as far more valuable and far reaching than once thought: Its basic format can aid in understanding for more than biological evolution! It turns out that Darwin's theory was far more than a scientific description 9theory) of how life develops, but also a whole new way, perspective, from which to look at science - This is called a Paradigm shift!

It must be cautioned however not to take it too literally (as certain types do) the universe and planets etc. don't literally evolve like living organisms do.

As to the hand grenade I have no reply, largely because I fail to understand the analogy in its entirety. Unless it is trying to describe the theory as completely ludicrous in which case I think that this argument would have read better: fusebox monkey, happy trout.

It's because it is ludicrously simplistic - It amounts to nothing but seeing "Bang" and assuming the universe exploded, just like a hand grenade - ignoring any of the actual science involved. Childish really.

What I really wanted to say though relates to mass and energy and some of the questions that LIS posed. One thing that a professor of an astronomy class on this subject pointed out to me was about Einstein's famous equation: E = mc²

E-energy equals m-mass times (c-speed of light) squared. This simple equation indicates a relation between mass and energy, that much is obvious. Not necessarily as obvious is the fact that it implies a proportionality between mass and energy meaning, they're not just related, they are the same thing. And that is not shown better anywhere better than at the very beginning during that Great Expansion. The heat and pressure were so high that as ADParker stated, atoms and subatomic particles as we know them today didn't exist. They weren't in their mass form, rather, they were in a form of pure energy, that as things expanded and cooled, "condensed" (for lack of a better word) into their known forms, first electrons, followed by protons and then the combined proton-electron, the neutron. From all of this, the rest of the Universe and matter developed.

In any case, that's the gist of what I took away from the beginning of the Universe in addition to what ADParker has already said. It's really amazing what we can learn and have learned from discoveries of this kind and to discount them out of hand without trying to understand them is doing science a great disservice.

Absolutely (I'm almost embarrassed that I failed to mention it myself) I too had what was probably a similar experience to you - a WOW factor on hearing that cool bit of science. Made even more simply: Matter is Energy, and Energy is matter. The same stuff in a different form. Just as Ice, Water and Steam are.

Energy can form into matter (perhaps this is what the big bang largely entailed). More readily noticeable is that Matter turns into energy - The most common ones we notice in every day actions is the production of "Waste energy" namely: Heat, noise (sonic) and light. Where do these come form when, for example, a grenade is made purely of matter (no light or sound stuff sitting inside - trust me I've worked with them, I've looked )? Simple; some of the matter is transformed into these forms of energy.

[Guest]

Ahhhh.....the Big Bang Theory. Most of you may be able to tell that I'm CRAZY, about space. But then again, there is nothing as satisfying as discovering one of the infinite mysteries of space and time. The Big Bang theory is basically how the universe started. One miniscule speck, erupted into the universe in a fraction of a second, and simultaneously heating up to unimaginable temperatures!! The universe is always expanding btw.

[Guest]

Uhhh...I'm curious as to how a grenade blowing up in your room would make it cleaner than it was before. Besides, the universe isn't clean and orderly, it's the exact opposite! This really isn't a good analogy to the Big Bang.

Indeed (I was about to say that - before the wife pulled me away for a bit - no not that, get your mind out of the gutter )

The "universe" might look all neat and ordered from our comfortable position here on earth - but if one were to (and could) look at it from the outside (does that even make sense in regards to the universe?) it would most likely just appear as a big mess, a lot of nothin' (ignoring all that dark matter/energy stuff for now) with random clumps of matter all over the place. Even in total chaos you get little pockets of apparent order.

[Guest]

asside from the god did it principal aka we dont know - lets leave that out of it and stick to the physics if you dont mind folks

Thanks again AD P - had most of that from another source and the big bang book - but sure it should be the RAPID EXPANSION THEORY - but the big bang title is a crowd puller and that will bring in some odd remarks i'm sure

Oh sure; personally I love the "Big Bang" moniker - like most of the astrophysics jargon; so simple and to the point - no playing around with fancy Latin words and the like. Physicists tend to like it as well; that's why they adopted it from the insult it was intended to be.

It is important to point out at times (not between physicists of course) that "Bang" is not exactly what it appears though - as shown back there with our Holy hand grenade faith-head (sorry when he revealed himself as all religious and junk and mentioned the hand grenade; Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail is what immediately came to mind.

"Rapid Expansion" helps explain it more accurately, but keep the name "Big Bang", it's cool.

I accept a lot of the quality theory down to the quarks of various kinds - but cant put to one side the very very begining of what ever was first - what was it - has anyone come across anything to point to the start being warm or cold - i have no view yet on which it cld be but it is another huge leap of faith to accept it was all there as hotter than we cld imagine and cooled - why not hte other way round

Where did the plasmic type state start from, where did it come from - lets not try to guess the size of this spec - mable, golfball, football - as small as it was why did it start there or how did it get to there before R E T

All interesting questions, and important ones. The answer is "We don't know, but we're working on it" (Well they are working on it, I'm no Cosmologist.)

There are a bunch of hypotheses and such. Quantum physics has its M Theory, then we have all that Multiverse stuff (of which there are four levels.) All fascinating and very very cool, but Cosmology is still "Waiting for its Darwin." It is realised that something big needs to happen, something needs to be discovered, or some new wild theory needs to be formulated, to make it all click, just As The Origin of Species did for Biology.

As to the size of the spec: Smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Possibly a Singularity - infinitely small, not that size really means anything as the physical dimensions (the known three plus the forth; space - and perhaps more?) might well have been emergent properties of the Big bang. What does size mean without dimensions for it to be within? - Yup getting weird and counter-intuitive again!

I would heartily recommend Origins by Neil deGrasse Tyson: He is an Astrophysicist. The book goes through a lot of the stuff you seem interested in (Bloody good read too.)

It was also a NOVA TV Series. Here’s the Intro to the first episode, the entire series can be found on YouTube:

Origins - Earth Is Born - Introduction

Glad you mentioned heat again, as it gives me the chance to say a little more on it, which will shed some light (I hope) onto the nature of the science we are dealing with here.

What is heat? As I said before it is motion of particles, but further to that: When something has energy added to it, or is being converted into energy by the breaking (or fusing) of bonds between particles, atoms etc. these particles are "excited" that is, they vibrate and move around a lot. That is heat - When we feel this vibration - that is; when we come into contact with it (put a hand on a hot element, or in the air from a fire for instance, that air is comprised of particles as well remember) the messages sent back to our brain lead us to interpret them in a particular way. Basically a way that is of use to us - "Ow that's painful/hot, pull away or get burnt!" What we call heat is our interpretation of the sensing of that particle movement. It's a perfect example of how what we experience is an impression, a useful illusion one could say, based on what is actually present. A working model layered over the actual workings of the universe for ease of use. Just like your Computer's operating system you are using (Windows Vista or whatever it might be) is a useful, easy to use layer over the machine code underneath. In our endeavours into science at these startling levels, we are beginning to peek under that convenient layer, to the inner working. They are bound to be perplexing, and not at all like what we are used to.

A little more to the heat thing, it is a useful example of the distinction and connection between the real word and the one we experience.

When we feel warmth - it is like our senses detect the small amout of energy that is being released, which might be of some use to us - we use that energy, and that is why we operate better when we are warm (but not too warm) but not cold - it is "good" and it feels good (Nice and warm) so we feel like "basking" in it, we are attracted to it; coincidence?

When these senses feel a decided lack of particle movement, we interpret that as cold. That's bad, no energy for us, we slow down, our parts cease to operate properly (sluggish) then we die - No energy equals death. And that feels pretty bad - again, coincidence?

When, however those senses detect a great deal of movement - which we interpret as Hot - well that represents another problem - excess energy, more than we can handle, dangerous energy, energy that can cause catastrophic deterioration and harm (Radiation) to us - in other words; it burns. And that feels pretty damn bad as well, coincidence?

No its not. I think you get the picture. We sense this change in particle motion and energy in a way that tells us more directly of its potential effect (like your computer operating system telling you something in plain(ish) English, rather than you having to spend time trying to understand what the machine code means,) so we can react to it appropriately and in time.

Okay, one thing might be confusing there (my fault entirely.) I have been saying that heat is the movement of particles, not exactly accurate:

Heat is a form of energy, what this energy does is make molecules move. When molecules have this energy they are active (move), when they have none they all stop, and this we call Absolute Zero - the lowest possible temperature, where molecules can no longer move because the have no heat energy to do so.

Back to your question on heat: was the singularity, spec, thingy that went off in a "big Bang" hot? Well it did contain all of the Heat energy in the universe (energy is neither gained or lost remember, just converted) contained in that infinitely small space, by definition, that's pretty darn hot!