According to the big bang theory fifteen billion years ago the entire universe was a point of infinite density. That is even theoretically impossible. A point lacks length, depth, and width. It is a location, not a container.

I think it is likely that something like the big bang happened. Nevertheless, the theory needs more work.

Of course it could be that the reality is too complicated for the intelligence of modern humans to fully understand. I doubt homo erectus could have understood something like photosynthesis.

 

Well, duh ... if it had volume the density would be less than infinite.

 

I will attempt to answer this. Incubus and Devious, I am not a physicist, and I am doing this off-the-cuff with no pasting or references, so if I am off on a fact or two, please be kind. :wink:

Big Bang Theory, when first publicized, was simplified for the masses. Thus there are many popular misconceptions.

It is similar to what has happened with Darwinism. One could use hemoglobin or cytochrome-C to prove that natural selection happens, but the details are complicated, which is why we bicker over people coming from chimpanzees.

Back to the Big Bang.

The universe did not compress to a point having no diameter, according to Big Bang Theory.

That would be true if its geometry were Euclidean.

The General Theory of Relativity does not use Euclidean geometry. It uses Riemannian geometry.

Big Bang Theory did need work, even when Lemaitre proposed it, and a lot of work has been done. As the theory has been refined, the dimensions of the "point" have been expanded from four (under the Riemannian system) to at least eleven, in the shape of a Calabi Yau Manifold. What does it look like? Difficult to describe. Looks a lot like eleven writhing snakes tied up into a ball. And yet, if you look at it closely enough, its surface appears to be Euclidean, which is one of the properties that makes it a manifold. (Similarly, the earth's surface appears to be flat, because spheres are manifolds, too. And the illusion is so convincing, while doing a face-plant, that many people, such as the OP, still believe that the earth really is flat.)

So, according to current Big Bang theory, the "point" at the advent of the Big Event had volume and held energy. But not much energy. Because the universe was very small at the time. The "point" had a diameter of the Planck Length, and it had an energy equivalent to the Planck Mass, which while being a lot of energy compressed into so small a space, nevertheless would not have been hot enough to light your barbecue.

The question now is not whether or not the Big Bang happened, but how the universe remained so consistent, from one end to the other, as mass, energy and time "unfurled." An answer to this question was postulated decades ago, and it was theorized that the universe "inflated" very rapidly early in its formation, faster than the speed of light within the bounds of its extent, due to the effects of an underlying background field, which was dubbed "The Higgs Field."

For decades the Higgs Fields was not a theory, but merely a conjecture, because no one had ever seen a "Higgs particle."

Until just a month ago, when the Higgs particle was incontrovertibly detected in an LHC experiment at CERN.

Thus, the good old "Big Bang Theory" is incredibly strong, because it predicted the existence of the Higgs Particle, decades before anyone even knew to look for it!

And that is why the Higgs is such a big deal: because it affirms the plausibility of Big Bang Theory by giving a physical explanation for why the properties of the observabe universe are so consistent.

 

There are a few misconceptions and misrepresentations of what the big bang theory actually is. The Big Bang Theory is only an explanation of the development of the universe, not the origin. Much like the theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it only explains the diversity of life.

The BBT does not state that the universe was ever point like, that is also a common misconception.



Be worth reading this

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

That was an incredible off -the -cuff explanation, clarise. I think I'm getting a boner.

 

For some reason I'm reminded of this

[YOUTUBE]Qhm7-LEBznk[/YOUTUBE]

Except Clarise is playing the role of the boyfriend with the camera

 

​

 

I'm sure I covered this in more detail before, specifically what I mentioned in the above quote, but I cannot remember where I posted the deeper explanation.


Anyway, 'MinutePhysics' from youtube posted a video earlier this week which elegantly explains this aspect of the big bang theory better than me.

Enjoy.

[YOUTUBE]q3MWRvLndzs[/YOUTUBE]


Edit:- Also this

[YOUTUBE]W4c-gX9MT1Q[/YOUTUBE]

 

People, this is not difficult.

Fractals. The answer lies in understanding fractals.

 

I never was too good at fractals, especially converting them to decimals.

 

***** GOD CONFESSES THAT HE FUCKED UP *****
THE HEAVENS—Saying that maybe He wasn’t around enough and could have expressed His divine love a little better throughout the history of mankind, Our Lord God and Almighty Father expressed concern Thursday that He might have fucked up His children.

In a frank conversation with reporters, God said it’s not hard to see that all 7 billion of His children are “pretty screwed up” and that many of them are hopelessly maladjusted and unfit to live healthy, normal lives.

“I love my sons and daughters equally, but was I present as much as I could have been? Probably not,” said the Divine Creator, pointing to the human race’s emotional volatility, existential angst, and lack of any real direction as evidence of His failure. “Ever since I molded them in my image, I’ve tried to do right by them. I really have. But they’re just so dysfunctional that I’m starting to wonder if I’m to blame.”

God claimed that though He always made sure to provide His children with food, water, air to breathe, and an earth to live on, He was starting to realize that material things weren’t nearly enough. In addition, while God repeatedly said He loved his children, the Lord our Maker admitted He could have said it more often.

Moreover, God told reporters He was also beginning to regret His hands-off approach, saying that giving His children complete free will was probably a mistake.

“I always thought that if I let them stray from the path of righteousness and goodwill, they’d learn how to get back on their own,” the Eternal One said. “But maybe that was just laziness on my part. The truth is, I was so busy ruling the universe and controlling Heaven and Earth that there were times when I was basically invisible to my children. I know that now.”

“No wonder they are running around breaking every single commandment I gave them,” He continued. “They needed an Almighty Ruler who was really there for them, not some deadbeat Heavenly Father who would just appear in a divine vision from time to time and split.”

The Author of Our Eternal Salvation added that He had passed down a number of bad habits He was starting to see in His children, particularly a shared inclination for senseless destruction and unpredictable, violent outbursts.

“I haven’t been the best example at times,” said God, admitting that His propensity for flooding, disease, and famine have “screwed with [His children’s] heads” for centuries. “I’ve put my sons and daughters through some pretty traumatic events, especially recently, and that’s exactly the kind of thing that makes them act out in the first place. I mean, they see me destroy Indonesia with a tsunami or kill 6 million of my own children in Europe, and what do you think that does to them?”

“Probably fucks them up pretty good is what,” He added.

While God admitted He had made many mistakes in their upbringing that would no doubt leave them permanently scarred, the Supreme Being told reporters He wasn’t yet ready to give up on His flock.

“The fact is, my children only have one God, and it’s my responsibility to make sure they shape up and reach their full potential,” The Eternal One said. “Then again, a lot of them are so beyond screwed up at this point that there’s probably nothing I can do for them.”