Help needed reviewing Big Bang reply

[LMSx]

There's a thread in Spacebattles, technically titled "which is more important...." but actually a debate between evolution/creation. One poster brought up their notion science cannot explain how the universe was created beyond a cosmic egg from nothingness. I'm responding, but I would like to know if there are any mistakes in the text that cripple my argument: (I wouldn't call myself an expert)

Science has yet to show how the universe was created. It was created out of nothingness, they say. Okay, that's impossible. Whatever happened to matter cannot be created nor destroyed? See, it is these scientific paradoxes which makes science not realiable for everything. I am not debating the pratical and great uses of science, nor am I trying to stifle innovation and invention that comes through science.

Now, my own understanding of the Big Bang Theory is probably a bit off, but I'd like to imagine you're creating a false paradox.

It's energy, for one. Matter can easily be destroyed by touching Antimatter-it is simply converted into energy and photons. (Energy = mass x speed of light squared or E=mc²) Imagine a contracting universe upon which the matter and antimatter annihilate each other-the contraction of the universe slows down with the loss of mass (gravity), eventually resulting in a precarious Equilibrium, (word of the day ) upon which the "rubber band" snaps back, because of the existance of less gravity then needed to keep the egg in shape, which starts the Big Bang. E=mc² says matter can become energy and vice versa-vice versa particularly in this case. Photons are converted into particles/antiparticles, those eventually combine to form the lightest element, hydrogen. The hydrogen compacts together as more is collected, eventually resulting in stars. The stars burn through their hydrogen and then the byproduct helium, creating denser and denser matter/antimatter in the process. The growth slows with more gravity, eventually stopping, causing the universe to retract.....again and again and again.

[Joe]

Whatever happened to matter cannot be created nor destroyed?

Well, first of all, that's a universal law, and universal laws do not apply until there's a universe, which there was not until the after the big bang. Relativity predicts that all matter existed in a singularity state, in which time does not pass, before the birth of the Universe. The matter has simply always existed.

[LMSx]

Whatever happened to matter cannot be created nor destroyed?

Well, first of all, that's a universal law, and universal laws do not apply until there's a universe, which there was not until the after the big bang. Relativity predicts that all matter existed in a singularity state, in which time does not pass, before the birth of the Universe. The matter has simply always existed.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about relativity and time during the brief blurb on the cosmic egg. A good point.

[Darth Wong]

Science has yet to show how the universe was created. It was created out of nothingness, they say. Okay, that's impossible. Whatever happened to matter cannot be created nor destroyed? See, it is these scientific paradoxes which makes science not realiable for everything. I am not debating the pratical and great uses of science, nor am I trying to stifle innovation and invention that comes through science.

Strawman fallacy. Science does not say that the universe was created out of nothingness. For this to be true, there would have had to be a time where there was no universe. However, time is a property of the universe and there was never a time without a universe by definition.

Ignoramuses like this unnamed fundie invariably distort science by altering it to fit their mindless preconceptions (such as the way he obviously thinks that space and time are independent of the universe) and then ask why it doesn't work once you mangle it like that.

[htg]

Now, my own understanding of the Big Bang Theory is probably a bit off, but I'd like to imagine you're creating a false paradox.

It's energy, for one. Matter can easily be destroyed by touching Antimatter-it is simply converted into energy and photons. (Energy = mass x speed of light squared or E=mc²) Imagine a contracting universe upon which the matter and antimatter annihilate each other-the contraction of the universe slows down with the loss of mass (gravity), eventually resulting in a precarious Equilibrium, (word of the day ) upon which the "rubber band" snaps back, because of the existance of less gravity then needed to keep the egg in shape, which starts the Big Bang. E=mc² says matter can become energy and vice versa-vice versa particularly in this case. Photons are converted into particles/antiparticles, those eventually combine to form the lightest element, hydrogen. The hydrogen compacts together as more is collected, eventually resulting in stars. The stars burn through their hydrogen and then the byproduct helium, creating denser and denser matter/antimatter in the process. The growth slows with more gravity, eventually stopping, causing the universe to retract.....again and again and again.

Don't post that response.

The first, and biggest problem with it is that it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since your argument seems to depend on a temporally infinite but spatially finite universe, it would long since have suffered Heat Death. After the first few cycles you'll have run out of usable energy, and the universe will have turned into a low-temperature mist of radiation and matter. Even the conversion of energy to matter must involve an increase in entropy (though I'm not sure how. Does someone out there know?)

Second, the vast majority of matter/antimatter pairs annihilate each other right after they are generated (their opposite electrical charges attract them back to each other). The only exception to this rule I know of is close to the event horizons of black holes (the famous Hawking radiation) and that is insufficient to re-generate the matter of the universe in a reasonable time frame.

Third, the vast majority of cosmologists state that the universe mostly contains matter, and very little anti-matter. Thus, in a contracting universe, very little matter will get converted to radiation.

Fourth, unless I'm gravely mistaken, even photons exert gravitational influence on the universe in direct proportion to their energy (m=E/c^2). Thus the total gravitational pull on the universe will remain constant, and it will continue to collapse to singularity.

An argument along the lines of what Darth Wong and Duran Korr wrote is much better (and unanswerable without switching tacks completely.)

Henk G.

[Sir Sirius]

Ah, our beloved nitpicking hit & run YEC returns.

[Rye]

Well, in short, CofE and known physics don't apply pre-time to my knowledge...so it's anybody's guess. No causality applies either. The universe could've just appeared, but it's really unknown and not agreed on, last time i checked.

[The Nomad]

In theory, isn't the total energy of the universe zero ? I mean, the balance between potential and "active" energy, that kind of stuff ? So that CoE is in fact always fullfilled ?

[LMSx]

*blah blah*

Don't post that response.

Yeah, after re-reading that it's not how I would have wanted to present a response at all. In light of that I won't try and frame a new response, just address htg's points.

The first, and biggest problem with it is that it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since your argument seems to depend on a temporally infinite but spatially finite universe, it would long since have suffered Heat Death. After the first few cycles you'll have run out of usable energy, and the universe will have turned into a low-temperature mist of radiation and matter. Even the conversion of energy to matter must involve an increase in entropy (though I'm not sure how. Does someone out there know?)

What I failed to point out in the topic is that the universe wouldn't be temporally infinite. Imagine an y/x graph of space/time. At 0,0 there is the singularity/cosmic egg, at 10,10 there is the maximum the universe will ever expand. You're imagining the universe as a continuing parabola, from 10,10 the universe will shrink to 0,20 then to 10,30 and so forth. Instead, think of a single line from 0,0 to 10,10.....which then goes straight back to 0,0. On the trip from 0,0 to 10,10 (the one we are in) the universe would move forward, as would time. (and entropy, since you brought it up) Once it hits 10,10 the universe will begin contracting and move back, as would time and entropy. Cause and Effect would not be affected (har) since in an expanding universe the future always has a greater X value and in a contracting universe the future would have a smaller X value-so Effect wouldn't proceed Cause. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would make sure each "trip" is different.

So-
net amount of time (+x -x) = 0
net amount of distance (+y -y) = 0
net amount of entropy (+e -e) = 0

Pretty smooth total. If The Nomad is true, tack on a net amount of energy = 0 and if I'm slaughtering physics principles here now, it's worth pointing out to stop me.

Second, the vast majority of matter/antimatter pairs annihilate each other right after they are generated (their opposite electrical charges attract them back to each other). The only exception to this rule I know of is close to the event horizons of black holes (the famous Hawking radiation) and that is insufficient to re-generate the matter of the universe in a reasonable time frame.

Now, I wrote that ---->assuming<---- that there was no rational reason why energy converted into matter (I use that term generally) would prefer our version of matter over antimatter. If that assumption is true, then there would be an equal quantity of antimatter *somewhere*. If not, well, hopefully someone will poke a hole in it.

Fourth, unless I'm gravely mistaken, even photons exert gravitational influence on the universe in direct proportion to their energy (m=E/c^2). Thus the total gravitational pull on the universe will remain constant, and it will continue to collapse to singularity.

The end result of a contracting universe would be a higher temperature as matter is converted into radiation/energy. (Like the fusion in stars, except m/am is 100% efficient) The higher temperature would produce a growing expansive effect, and the cosmic egg serves as the point where the gravitational force and the expansive force are equal.

EDIT-FUBARed the space/time coordinates

[NapoleonGH]

the universe will not contract. The most recent theories state that it is accelerating in its expansion and that the shape of the universe (sorta like a horse's saddle) prevents it from contracting

[Cej4096]

the universe will not contract. The most recent theories state that it is accelerating in its expansion and that the shape of the universe (sorta like a horse's saddle) prevents it from contracting

Actually the universe is currently believed to be flat, but other than that you are right.

The fact that the universe is flat would apparently fit well with the idea that Nomad mentioned, that the net energy of the universe is zero, and thus even if CoE does apply to such situations, it is not a problem.