digg

Join DiggAbout
All » Science » Space
See the original image at upload.wikimedia.org

The Universe From The Big Bang

upload.wikimedia.org — A diagram explaining the expansion of the universe since the Big Bang.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • HotGore, on 05/18/2008, -32/+22Cool!
    • nreynolds, on 05/18/2008, -4/+8I mean... this is a perfectly nice representation of Universe 1, but let's see how well they do describing Universe A.
    • Devilboy666, on 05/18/2008, -5/+7Hawkins pointed out in his TED talk that the universe only cooled down enough for life to become possible within the last 1/2 billion years - which you can see from the diagram is very recent in the history of the universe. The oldest life that we know about from earth fossils is about 570 million years old which means life developed on earth almost immediately after becoming possible.

      That means we may very well be either the only or the most advanced life in the universe right now.
      • petrodollar, on 05/18/2008, -6/+5Who is Hawkins?
      • Terasiel, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5...What? After that entire paragraph you came to the opposite conclusion I did. I wasn't aware that the planet Earth in this solar system in this galaxy was the very first, and possible only, planet that hit the perfect spot first. Good thing there aren't trillions of other planets beyond our inspection that could have done the same before us.
      • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1First of all, do you mean Stephen Hawking?

        If life on earth started 'immediately' after life became possible, then isn't it possible that life throughout the universe began at that exact same time? As if, as soon as life became possible, then life began in all the primordial 'soup bowls' throughout the universe, including our own.
      • sarge96, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1Devilboy666=Fail
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
      • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0buried for even considering we may be the only life in the universe devilboy
      • johnmw, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3What? We could be the most advanced life in the universe? No alien race is going to come down from the heavens and solve our problems? We have to grow up and take responsibility ourselves?

        Bugger that. I'm going back to good ol' religion.
      • dualboy24, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1TED Talks Stephen Hawkings: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/242
      • dualboy24, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3He stated that it took 1/2 billion years for life to start on earth because the earth was too hot, and that life first showed up 3.5 billion years ago. He did not state that life in the universe started only 1/2 billion years ago.
    • samw1ns, on 05/18/2008, -2/+7im sure i would find this really cool, if i knew what half the stuff meant.
      • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1I'm sure I would not have buried you if you had used capitalization.
        • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1buried for being persistent in fixing this incorrigible world
      • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -2/+0really samw1ns?
      • samw1ns, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3I'm fifteen cut me some slack, I should be allowed to be retarded.
        • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1yeh and im only 17, get an education
  • glinsvad, on 05/18/2008, -89/+7Hardly qualifies as news
    • StuTheMeatMan, on 05/18/2008, -0/+15Yeah I guess the "Science >> Space" category shouldn't have any stories about the creation of the universe. Thanks for telling us that.
    • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3glinsvad=fail
      • glinsvad, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Maybe the joke would have been clearer if I had written:
        13.7 * 10^9 years != news
    • Asheis, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Errm... If the story you're reading from digg isn't about Obama, it's most definately about something entirely random. I'd say this is one of those times, but definately not in a bad way. This is interesting!
  • Vullkan, on 05/18/2008, -7/+450I like it, it's not politics
    • Buckeye17, on 05/18/2008, -0/+28What is the stuff outside the universe?
    • MasterThief117, on 05/18/2008, -1/+17or about digg.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3Or Bob Ross.
      • Amadeus2490, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4Well actually, the Big Bang Theory is an intense debate that involves religion. Maybe this isn't such a welcome pace after all?
    • p0tent1al, on 05/18/2008, -11/+13Sorry, Jesus created the earth and all the people that live in it.

      (see? we can make it politics)
      • Amadeus2490, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7Now you're cookin' with gas!
      • ralphie81, on 05/18/2008, -1/+6Or religion, as some call it.
      • arobicha, on 05/18/2008, -0/+12Religion, gas... what's the difference?
        • p0tent1al, on 05/18/2008, -4/+1sigh.... I knew people were going to reply with that......politics and religion are intertwined, in case you missed it...
    • adith, on 05/18/2008, -4/+4Actually, Clinton loss sometime between the Dark Ages and the first stars, but she STILL hasn't quit yet. Can't she take a hint?!?!?
    • ralphie81, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2You're right, it's art.
    • LoveYouSomeEric, on 05/18/2008, -2/+5A vote for John McCain is a vote for more of the same old policies of dark energy accelerated expansion!
    • schrankage, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1Why doesn't the timeline show the Obama Era of Change?
      • PhireN, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2And yet I liked the articles about politics more.

        Since Digg no longer has any tech news, the only reason I'm still here is for anti-Clinton news. I wish she would drop out so I can get back to the real world.
      • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1because it hasn't happened yet and never will. we live in a country where capitalism rules, not socialism.
    • gn02256676, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0The fact that your comment being digging up and political news all over digg confused me.
  • JimmySpaza, on 05/18/2008, -87/+17Wow! Of course, the universe would have to violate every law of nature to create itself like this. But, so what? We can just make up another theory to cover ourselves when the first theory paints us into a corner with its logical outworkings.
    • SQLserver, on 05/18/2008, -6/+63Congratulations.
      You are the only digg troll that I know by name.

      There are several elegant theories that describe what happened before the big bang without any flaws.
      Of course, it is speculation.

      Obviously, what is not speculation is this:
      ALL of the TONS of evidence points towards a 13.7 billion years old, or at least billions of years old universe, that started expanding in an explosion about 13.7 billion years ago.

      Scientists do not pretend to know what happened before the big bang.
      The Big Bang does not violate ANY laws of nature; It simply states that the universe quickly started expanding from an extremely dense singularity around 13.7 billion years ago.
      • JimmySpaza, on 05/18/2008, -28/+2"The Big Bang does not violate ANY laws of nature"

        Ah, yeah it does. Talk to a scientist doing the research on this theory and he/she will tell you that contemporary ideas of physics and chemistry to not always apply to the Big Bang, from its singularity to initial expansion.

        Don't think so? Try this one...how could the universe theoretically expand faster than the speed of light right after the Big Bang explosion began?

        See? You have to suspend traditional ideas of time and space, including laws of nature to allow the Big Bang singularity to begin with and later the initial expansion.
        • riskybeats, on 05/18/2008, -0/+16Damn, with this kind of skepticism and a broader approach, you could actually make leyweigh in a scientific based community. I had never heard of this problem until I looked it up. I'm serious.
          But here's my problem: You make it sound like since that is a scientific issue, and that it doesn't obey certain theories/standards we have right now, that it will be insolvable, thus your argument wins by default. It's not like scientists don't realize this is a problem, except unlike you, they are actually working on it. All you can do is poke at certain problems they have until they figure them all out.
          When you say you have to suspend traditional ideas of time and space, they do. It's called quantam physics, which works in the framework they have to explain the beginning and much of the expansion of the big bang.
        • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -2/+9Jimmy is actually right about this one. "Hyperexpansion" does violate what we're always being told is the "universal speed limit". Personally, I have always been bothered by the speed limit idea.

          Not that it makes him right about most of the garbage he spews.
        • wildmonkeys77, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1risky - a point is that once you abandon natural law you are no longer following the scientific method, and even though you can still logically work your way through this, and still be completely right - you cannot tag the ever-persuasive "scientific" word onto your ideas
        • riskybeats, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5@wildmonkeys

          You are absolutely right - It then goes into the realm of supernatural. But just because we don't know something yet means it automatically goes into unnatural laws, it just means we have to take different approaches with it that we haven't yet thought of yet while obeying natural laws, thus still coinceding with the current scientific model.
        • seventoes, on 05/18/2008, -1/+8The speed of light has acctually been proven variable, it was on digg a while ago.
        • riskybeats, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2Seventoes - Yeah, but only to slow down. They haven't been able to actually make it go faster, and guess that it is probably impossible.
        • nicksauce, on 05/18/2008, -0/+22Jimmy please don't try to pretend that you're a physicist, or even that you know ***** all about the subject. If you did you would know that there is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents space from expanding faster than the speed of light. There is nothing in relativity that says space can't expand faster than the speed of light, it merely says that information can't travel faster than the speed of light.

          Look what you can find in two minutes by doing a google search:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_s ...
          "The metric expansion leads naturally to recession speeds which exceed the "speed of light" c and to distances which exceed c times the age of the universe, which is a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.[1] The speed c has no special significance at cosmological scales."
        • IIDXBoss, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Nicksauce is right. Also at extremely LARGE scales and extremely SMALL scales the laws that hold true to us are not always the same.

          Quantum physics proves this, as does string theory.
        • TheCatsPants, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2the speed of light is a limit for the speed of electromagnetic radiation and massive particles, there is no limit of the speed of expansion of the bits in between them.
    • Murdats, on 05/18/2008, -9/+16got an alternative?
      and god did it doesnt count because hey they rewrites every law of nature aswell.
      • JimmySpaza, on 05/18/2008, -13/+2Well, heck, if scientists can suspend all ideas of time, space, and the laws of nature to allow the Big Bang singularity and initial expansion...then why can't we suspend them too and allow God?

        What's good for the goose can be exceedingly good for the gander...unless you want to hypocritically allow laws to be ignored for one theory but not another.
        • Murdats, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7because if you are going to criticise them for "suspend[ing] all ideas of time, space, and the laws of nature" then you cant propose we ditch that to follow your less informed plan that also "suspend[s] all ideas of time, space, and the laws of nature"
        • Murdats, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7damn edit timer

          also scientists realise that this isnt exactly how things worked but it is our current model.
          however unlike you who just cries "god did it" and then sits on their hands, they go out, gather more evidence, propose more hypothesis and run more experiments, you know, the actual work required to find out how the universe works.

          the world wasn't discovered to be round by people saying "god did it" then looking no further, the existence of the solar system, how suns work, how galaxies work, how electricity, light, and the rest of nature works was not solved by pointing at a centuries old book then doing nothing.
        • Dimensio, on 05/18/2008, -0/+11"Well, heck, if scientists can suspend all ideas of time, space, and the laws of nature to allow the Big Bang singularity and initial expansion...then why can't we suspend them too and allow God?"

          To which "God", out of the thousands of often mutually exclusive deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout history do you refer, and why do you believe that one particular "God" should be "allowed" when no other is?
        • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7So are you suggesting that we say "God did it" and leave it be?

          A lot of us truly do believe that anything is possible. Hell a lot of us don't have a single problem with believing that there is intelligence behind the universe, it's just when people like you try to anthropomorphise everything and think it's all about you that we shake our heads.

          If you simply believed that a supreme intelligence may have had a hand in things, I wouldn't have one complaint as long as you weren't trying to stifle those who are actually trying to find the answers. Unfortunately, I know that you prescribe to the human-obsessed dramaqueen of a god we know from the bible.
        • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2murdats and doomxeen you're the greatest people ever, no sarcasm
        • Esstee, on 05/18/2008, -4/+2@So are you suggesting that we say "God did it" and leave it be?

          Part of the prime directive given to the first human pair was "to master there domain", in other words, to learn and master all there was to know on life and existence.

          I have always found it odd that that faith in God equates being dumb about life and surroundings.
        • Esstee, on 05/18/2008, -5/+1@To which "God", out of the thousands of often mutually exclusive deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout history do you refer, and why do you believe that one particular "God" should be "allowed" when no other is?

          I wonder though... out of all those choices how many gods presented themselves as an absolute power? Or as the beginning and the end of all things in existence as well as having the highest authority above all thing? What about the God that claimed that He was jealous and that anyone serving any other deity would be committing a crime against His sovereignty?

          I won't pretend to be an expert but to my knowledge, few if any... other than the one divine God has taken this role.

          Whatever the case, your argument is weak and irrelevant, pointing out that believing in unscientific processes to satisfy a belief is in no way better than believing in God to begin with. Who cares about what type of God people cling too, an intelligent force has no bearing on religious doctrines from this juncture regardless of the argument.
        • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3So you're going to insist that the Christian god is the one true god based on the fact that "he" mentions other gods challenging his sovereignty? This is why you guys get so much grief. Those of us that concede to you that a supreme intelligence could exist just find so many of you INSISTING that your god is the one and only.

          How is his arguement weak and irrelevant? We could make up an infinite number of alternate gods, all of them claiming to be the one and only. Many religions do have their own almighty. Your religion is a mish-mash of pagan religions, afterall.

          No one is pointing out anything "unscientific". If you even care to have a real discussion, which as far as I'm concerned you haven't done so far, then please state what you think is so unscientific and I'll gladly explain it for you.

          Jimmy. If you're still around. I would really like to know what you think of Esstee's posts. I honestly want to know how you people think.
        • Esstee, on 05/18/2008, -5/+1Who said Christian?
          The next part really made me laugh. "This is why you guys..."

          There are no doubts that we can have other gods. Since gods are subjective to man made rituals. However, in retrospect to the article, an absolute power or force above all things, harmonizes with the big bang theory. The issue raised by dimensio, challenged the proposal of an absolute power based on either a violation of alternate beliefs, or... omittance by incredulity.

          The argument was never about religion. It was about applying one fallacious belief to satisfy a need, while negating the other. And since we have no argument on this platform, some of us found it necessary to reshape the argeument as a means to express there own limited capacity on matters.

          In closing, the original Genesis documents, was never labeled by religious enterprises. Though it was however, subjected(included) and branded by numerous religious enterprises following, this alone does not validate the document or contents as Christian or otherwise.

          As it has been pointed out on numerous occasions throughout this comment section. The irony of the big bang theory is that it calls for unscientific or unverifiable reasoning in order to receive consideration. For the most part, it is perfectly acceptable to contemplate "supernatural" laws or events to satisfy a said theory, however, ridiculous or foolish to consider anything that involves or resembles a higher intelligence.

          Trying as some may to change the focus of the argument, there are no two ways about this. We are dealing with a hypocritical mindset by applying or enforcing such a concept.
        • Dimensio, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5"I wonder though... out of all those choices how many gods presented themselves as an absolute power?"

          As only a deity which has ever been extant, rather than asserted extant, could make such a presentation, your question relies upon a questionable premise.


          " Or as the beginning and the end of all things in existence as well as having the highest authority above all thing? What about the God that claimed that He was jealous and that anyone serving any other deity would be committing a crime against His sovereignty? "

          Your question assumes that such a "God" exists. Why should your particular claim be considered correct, and claims of all other deities be disregarded? Additionally, please demonstrate that you have established that no other proposed deity is said to have made such a statement.


          "I won't pretend to be an expert but to my knowledge, few if any... other than the one divine God has taken this role. "

          To which "one divine God" has taken this role, and if you are not an "expert" then why should your assertion be considered credible?

          Additionally, why should the alleged pronouncements of an undemonstrated entity themselves be considered evidence for the existence of that undemonstrated entity?


          "Whatever the case, your argument is weak and irrelevant, pointing out that believing in unscientific processes to satisfy a belief is in no way better than believing in God to begin with."

          I believe that you have misunderstood my argument. I was merely asking JimmySpaza to clarify his claim, as it was vague as stated. If you are unable to comprehend my argument, then your rebuttals will not be valid.
        • Esstee, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1Why don't we reiterate(again) what has been proposed so many times already.
          "What's good for the goose can be exceedingly good for the gander...unless you want to hypocritically allow laws to be ignored for one theory but not another."

          There was no misunderstanding of arguments... simply because, you haven't presented one. What you did do though, was make use of a minor statement in a sore attempt to derive your own arguments off of.

          The initial comment focused on the hypocritical mindset which surrounds the contemplation of the big bang theory relative to a higher power. There is little or nothing to add to this statement since it is both obvious and clearly substantiated.

          I don't know if its me or what, but recently I have seen nothing from you but cheap menotenous draws into predictable sidetracks of your own liking. I could of sworn that there was a time when your comments called for thought. However.,.. lately, you're angles and arguments have been drooping towards pathetic. - I'm reminded of a friend who has taken a keen liking to his daily puff. Though one would argue on the harms in such activities, I can attest that his overall intellectual performance has taken a hit for the worst! - So dude... if your a fan of the pipe, do yourself a favor by clearing your head and taking a long hard look at yourself.

          ... kids these days
      • wildmonkeys77, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1You don't need an alternative conclusion to be skeptical of a theory.
        • Murdats, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6no but it helps to have an alternative hypothesis to disprove a null hypothesis.
    • Brainmodder, on 05/18/2008, -1/+19Nope, stuff comes into and out of existence constantly on the subatomic scale. It is in fact possible for a football to materialize out of nothing, it's just highly improbable. It gets even spookier when you consider Boltzmann Brains.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzman_brain) Quantum mechanics will freak you out!
      • MoofTheStoof, on 05/18/2008, -2/+10Religion freaks me out more.
      • JimmySpaza, on 05/18/2008, -13/+2So, you're cool with matter and energy popping in and out of existence WITHOUT cause...but the idea of God who is without a cause is illogical, unverifiable, and unsupportable, huh?

        Let's just move the goalposts any which way to support the Big Bang theory and quantum theory but fix them when it's time to look at the supernatural.

        By the way, wouldn't quantum mechanics qualify as supernatural since natural laws do not apply to it? Ah-ha!
        • DanSheldon, on 05/18/2008, -0/+12Who defines the natural laws you are so fond of?

          Things that seem natural to us, without the application of science, fail under different circumstances. What temperature does water boil at at sea level? How about on top of Everest? Is that in defiance to natural order?

          We observe, study, and learn, constantly adapting what we may have at one point considered to be true according to new information. We work with theory, with ideas, some of which seem crazy and some of which are proven to be as such. But, we also find those that are shown to contain at least a glimmer of truth. We are in a constant effort to find out just what happened so many years ago. We take it one chunk at a time. If tomorrow we had all the information to show exactly what happened at the Big Bang we would move on to what happened before that and then before that and then before that.

          What we consider natural order now, may very well change over the coming years. This is not bad, this is good. This would be evidence that we had learned and grown. In just the same way that illness caused once by demons and spirits were eventually found to be caused by bacteria, viruses and other observable things.

          You are welcomed to believe in god. However, for one so concerned with the natural order, I would question the idea of an entity that creates natural order to just disrupt it (aka miracles, divine intervention).
        • riskybeats, on 05/18/2008, -0/+10''By the way, wouldn't quantum mechanics qualify as supernatural since natural laws do not apply to it? Ah-ha!''
          Hahahahahahahahahaha. I'd love to hear you say that to someone in any science based community.
          Quantum mechanics are still subject to laws of probability. Hahahaha you're funny.
        • Dimensio, on 05/18/2008, -0/+12"So, you're cool with matter and energy popping in and out of existence WITHOUT cause...but the idea of God who is without a cause is illogical, unverifiable, and unsupportable, huh?"

          Quantum particles have evidentiary support. Can a similar statement be truthfully stated for a "God"? Please define this "God". Please state the specific properties of this "God" and explain the objective and repeatable observations used to infer the existence of this "God".
        • wildmonkeys77, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1Dan-

          Natural Laws are conclusions reached by philosophers throughout history by the application of logic. You can deny them but you would be disagreeing with a lot of well-known philosophers who probably were smarter than you, and put more thought into this than you.

          Also you say that "We observe, study, and learn" once you leave out "testing" you are no longer in the realm of science. That doesn't mean you're right or wrong it means you can't add the tag of "scientific" to your argument
        • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8You really REALLY miss the point of these theories Jimmy :(

          Proposing that God is what is causing things around us doesn't change any of the experimentation.

        • BrainInAJar, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7the ideas of quantum mechanics have been tested and verified to a greater or lesser degree.

          Find me an experiment that can disprove God, and when we run it it doesn't, and that would be a viable scientific theory.

          It's not like scientists are willy-nilly ignoring the laws of nature. When the laws of nature don't work, they come up with other hypothesis, and come up with ways to test them before they're given any real consideration by any but the smallest subgroups of science.

          Take for example string theory... it's got a hypothesis, but no way to test it yet, so it's largely ignored or derided by any but the "popular" scientific press ( exempli gratia "NewScientist", or "Scientific American" ) which seeks to bring scientific ideas down to common understanding by removing jargon and explaining the back story through more than references to other papers
        • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3that'll do jimmy, that'll do
          but do tell what this "god" you speak of is
        • Esstee, on 05/18/2008, -6/+1The whole crux to the concept is not as much that something arrived out of nothing but that something arrived for nothing. It is quite one thing to try and justify our existence without a known origin, however it is quite another to try and justify our existence without a cause. Even evolutionary science proposes that all living organisms are somehow seeking to satisfy one characteristics or another, as opposed to life seeking a state of equilibrium.

          Who created God? who knows, then again, God is one of the few who seemed to tackle the proverbial question... by defining himself as pure energy, in need of nothing and having no beginning or an end.
        • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -1/+4So because your human concept of meaning doesn't apply to the whole of reality, you question why it exists?

          Anthropomorphizing. Look it up. It's likely the #1 reason you fail to understand most of the things that you do. You apply your concept of time, your concept of meaning, your concept of the divine to EVERYTHING and it leaves you blind.
        • Dimensio, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5"Who created God? who knows, then again, God is one of the few who seemed to tackle the proverbial question... by defining himself as pure energy, in need of nothing and having no beginning or an end."

          Energy is a measure of a potential for work. Energy is not a physical construct. The concept of "pure energy", while often employed in works of science fiction, is nonsensical and has no basis in reality.
      • nes4r2, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Hey now those brains on Futurama make sense.
    • Acidwire, on 05/18/2008, -3/+11We don't know what happened before the big bang, maybe someday science will tell us. Until then, what logic tells us an omnipotent, homophobic, metaphysical conscience must be responsible?
      • JimmySpaza, on 05/18/2008, -12/+3No. But if science reveals that natural laws would not allow such things, then the only alternative is the supernatural...the intelligent...and the conscious.

        Then we shift focus to the realm of theology, the study, not worship, of the Supreme Being.

        One shouldn't stubbornly demand a naturalistic explanation simply to have a naturalistic cause...especially when there is a theological cause which makes sense.
        • Acidwire, on 05/18/2008, -1/+14That is a very large "if."

          This is how you sound to everyone else:

          No. But if science reveals that natural laws would not allow for the appearance of presents under the Christmas tree, then the only alternative would be Santa or some other supernatural gift-giver.

          That statement is technically correct, but it doesn't make for a very effective argument.

        • Murdats, on 05/18/2008, -1/+10you do seem to love your false dichotomy. in fact you seem to base your entire world view on the false dichotomy you have proposed, but I guess I cant blame you, you are probably just regurgitating what other, more intelligent people say to help solve their cognitive dissonance.
        • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7Only a minority of people care that you believe in a "Supreme Being" Jimmy.

          It's the fact that you think you can speak to this supreme being and know his thoughts when you clearly don't. You use what you believe to be his words to justify anything you do in life and are a dangerous kind of person for it.

        • KimonoThief, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8"One shouldn't stubbornly demand a naturalistic explanation simply to have a naturalistic cause...especially when there is a theological cause which makes sense."

          This is not a new argument.

          Before chemistry, they said this about fire.

          Before the Theory of Gravitation, they said this about the motions of the planets.

          Before the discovery of electricity, they said this about lightning.

          Before the Theory of Evolution, they said this about the origin of species.

          All of these had a natural explanation that seemed impossible to find at the time. What makes you think this is different?
    • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -1/+16So you're simply positing that the theory of evolution and the big bang ASSERT how life and the universe were "created"???

      You do realize that is completely flawed, yes?

      Neither of them attempts to describe how anything was created, simply how things progress.

      Just sad to see a 47 year old with less of an ability to reason than a lot of 10 year-olds.
    • Jabertsohn, on 05/18/2008, -1/+10There were no laws of nature at the beginning of the Universe.
      The natural laws were created, along with the Universe, during (or shortly after) the big bang!
      • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7I think they stress too much on the terminology of "created" when they explain such things. It's less that the forces were "created" at this point, the universe just ended up in such a configuration that these forces started to become viable.
        • Jabertsohn, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2This is a good point, although entirely semantic.
          The word created does seem to imply that they were predetermined, or even designed, which is not what I meant at all!
        • Murdats, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3@japerstohn
          unless you are a creationist.
      • JimmySpaza, on 05/18/2008, -7/+3If there were no laws governing the creation of the universe, at least initially, then what laws were there governing the existence of the Big Bang singularity?

        There had to be laws in place otherwise the singularity could not exist on its own.
        • Jabertsohn, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4This actually brings up a valid point.

          There may well have been natural laws in place governing the Big Bang singularity, although they are not the same natural laws we have now.
          If there were other laws in place at the time, it would be impossible to theorise that the big bang theory violates them all though.

          I am also not sure about your conviction that the singularity could not exist without laws. Perhaps you are right though.
        • BrainInAJar, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3The catholic church accepts big bang theory as true, in as far as what existed before the big bang was God. The cause of the big bang is God, and what happens afterwards follows knowable natural laws put in place by God.

          There is no dichotomy between science and religion in this respect
        • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4Another perfectly reasonable post. If you would just keep posting like this we could have a perfectly functional conversation.

          The laws as we know them don't just supercede everything. It's not like they exist independently from what we consider "stuff", ie. energy/matter. It is the configuration of energy/matter that defines how the forces work.

          Consider that gravity mainly applies to the very large in the universe. While something like the strong force mainly applies to the very small. When so much of the "stuff" in our universe was compacted into such a small space, you had gravimetric events comparable to the largest of black holes occuring in spaces where the strong force would normally hold dominion. In this state the forces would act COMPLETELY different than what we know them as. When they say that the forces were as one in the singularity, it might be more easily understandable to say that they all worked at similar strengths and in a way "as one".
    • Phyraxus, on 05/18/2008, -5/+7Translation: "I'm frightened by things I don't know. Give me my goddy plz, I feel so safe and secure with him! Please don't make me use my brain. It HURTS TOO MUCH!!" *tear*
      • JimmySpaza, on 05/18/2008, -10/+2Thou shalt not assume that fear is what drives people to simply place God into the equation to make it balance.

        But, perhaps it is fear indeed which drives certain men to keep God out of the equation and force a naturalistic conclusion...fear of admitting that they are answerable to a Being who cannot be intimidated and argued with.
        • Dimensio, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8"Thou shalt not assume that fear is what drives people to simply place God into the equation to make it balance."

          I can agree with such a sentiment. While it is not logically valid to "insert" any deity into a gap in understanding, I do not believe that such insertions are always a result of fear.
        • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7Why would I fear possibly being answerable to any of an INFINITE number of possible gods?

          Do you never consider that your unquestioning obedience to so much dogma that is so blatantly man-made may actually upset this supreme being, if it should actually exist? That is assuming it has emotions anything like ours.

          I am in awe of existence and appreciate the life that I have. If a divine being really did have emotions at all comparable to our own, maybe these are things that it would look at first when assessing our worth.
        • TheCatsPants, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1"they are answerable to a Being who cannot be intimidated and argued with"
          So you are living in fear then. It's not of not knowing, but it's of what God might decide to do to you after you die?
      • Esstee, on 05/18/2008, -7/+2While I'm sure there are plenty of people who fit the bill, I find it equally interesting that we have a very sizable group of people who suffer from a phobia of the divine. In fact... the condition is so sever that it drives people to spent a great deal of time seeking reassurance from fellow peers that God really doesn't exist.
    • nicksauce, on 05/18/2008, -2/+18There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

      - Stepehen Hawking, a man much smarter than you
    • nicksauce, on 05/18/2008, -4/+16Furthermore, do you care to explain how god creating the universe from nothing doesn't violate 'every law of nature'? Oh wait, standard logic doesn't apply when discussing religion. Forgive me.
      • JimmySpaza, on 05/18/2008, -11/+1If the Big Bang theory is allowed to disregard all laws of nature to make it viable, then why can't other theories of creation?
        • DanSheldon, on 05/18/2008, -1/+9Straw Man, meet your daddy; his name is Jimmy
        • nicksauce, on 05/18/2008, -1/+11I don't suppose your family with the logical fallacy called 'Tu quoque'? Oh that's right you're not familiar with logical fallacies, otherwise you wouldn't use them in your arguments so much.

          Furthermore, the big bang disregards no laws of nature. How can a NATURAL event disregard laws of NATURE? If you want to claim that it never happened, go ahead and refute all the evidence in its favor. As always the nobel prize is waiting for you. But right now the big bang model works very well, whether or not you comprehend it.
        • eir574, on 05/18/2008, -1/+12@Jimmy,

          Why are you so convinced that the big bang theory violates the laws of nature? Are you well versed in quantum mechanics? I've never seen quite so many experts in quantum mechanics and thermodynamics as I have on digg threads involving the big bang theory and evolution.

          Do you not allow for at least the possibility that you misunderstand those fields?
        • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -1/+10Because what you propose isn't a theory. It is an assertion.

          So far the only honest problem you see with the big bang is that of hyper-expansion. You do realize that if they were just going to make ***** up to verify what they want to be the conclusion, they would flat out remove the idea of the speed of light being the cosmological constant of maximum speed. Fortunately, thats not actually how science works. We observe that the universe must have expanded faster than the speed of light at some point, some view it as a problem, some just see it as the next thing to figure out.

          The point of everything you're saying is "It's not stupid of me to believe in god". No, it is not stupid of you to believe in god, Jimmy. It is stupid that you act POSITIVE that your anthropomorphised christian god is the one true answer despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
        • nicksauce, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5"I don't suppose your family with the logical fallacy called 'Tu quoque'?"

          Should read I don't suppose you're familiar...

          5 minutes to edit and I can't get it right.
        • BlackBob, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7Stop whining and come up with a better theory. Anyone with the background is free to contribute. If you don't have the background, find people with beliefs similar to yours that do have the background. No one is stopping you.

          Or would you rather to just keep on whining because nobody is doing the research the way you think it should be done. You shouldn't expect other people to spend their lives doing research that doesn't make sense to them. If it makes so much sense to you to assume that God exists and go from there, then do some research and prove it. Otherwise, stop whining.
      • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3foolish, trying to bring logic into this discussion. there are catholics here, you should have known better
        • Borgcube, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1What? Catholics are actually pro-science compared with all the other Christian churches (Pope does except theory of evolution, you're just as bad as the original poster for not looking facts up)
        • Borgcube, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1If you disagree with me because of some facts, say so, don't just remain silent and without any arguments to support your claims.
      • Esstee, on 05/18/2008, -8/+2Whatever the case, the writers of the bible were smart enough to know that it took supernatural attributes to circumvent the issues of the beginning of our universe. Granted... It may not be the most scientifically logical explanation, but... hats off to them for at least knowing that the thought of something coming from nothing was just not going to jive with reality.
        • Doomxeen, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING.

          It is a literary thing when notable scientists write "from nothing". They acknowledge that there had to have been SOMETHING. Not a single scientist that I've ever read has simply asserted that there was NOTHING. Most of them admit that they just don't freakin' know.(the most logical thing to think atm)
    • Ganja360, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1keep in mind that the so-called 'natural laws' of physics are based on the existence of an isolated system... which is defined as a system in which there is no outside influence by the universe. EXCUSE ME? how can you base a 'natural law' on that which doesn't exist in nature. the circular thinking of our current paradigm....
  • chkdg8, on 05/18/2008, -16/+145In the beginning, Quantum Fluctuations was reported live by: http://i27.tinypic.com/15wb91c.jpg
    • DropTheOxygen, on 05/18/2008, -1/+30Wtf is with his head, it may be the position the picture was taken in, but wow...
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1It's the way his hair is positioned on his head. It makes his scalp appear higher and further back then it really is.
      • heliox, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Quantum Flatulations
      • ParadoxControl, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Little did you know, hes actually one of the aliens from the movie Aliens.
        • opmike, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1What about the alien from the movie Alien?
    • MJDub, on 05/18/2008, -5/+5With riveting analysis from:
      http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0605/7d4be1a ...
    • jayzer, on 05/18/2008, -6/+1Oh I get it, it's because he's old.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/18/2008, -1/+14He was already married 4 times by that time.

      /Larry King Joke
    • ligyron, on 05/18/2008, -6/+1In the beginning, there was nothing--which exploded
      • elcapitanp, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3The big bang does not state that 'nothing exploded.'
    • cannonball, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I was afraid to click the link, but I had to know...
    • lamiaconfitor, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5"welcom to Larry King live! I am here with a quantum singularity... I hear that you have had it with compression... seeing as the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.... do you think you may expand exponentially until all matter is pulled back together again?"
    • alucinante, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1wait a minute, is that you conan?
    • myass666mlong, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Its MR.BURNS
    • kjcdude, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1***** it, we're doing it live!
  • davidcg, on 05/18/2008, -13/+15This would be much cooler if it showed a radial/spherical expansion, not a directional/2d expansion.
    • danconia, on 05/18/2008, -2/+8That's what I was thinking. I can just see creationists showing this to their kids and saying "Darwinists think this is the shape of our universe when it is OBVIOUSLY not!", etc.
      Oh well.
      • desertDenizen, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5Creationists don't look at stuff like this or they wouldn't be Creationists. But no matter, through their ignorance, they have marginalized themselves into background noise. You only hear about them in the media, which is not where most important decisions are made in this society. The occasional local school board election gets disproportionate attention while the real story around the world is that real research continues and ignores the these 90% irrelevant people.
    • tschau, on 05/18/2008, -1/+23The graph is of a progression of time though, and chronology lends itself rather well to directional linearity. I'm hoping not many people took this to be the shape of the universe, as it obviously wasn't the intent.
    • catalysis, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3It's a graph representing time/distance in relation to the WMAP which is a microwave telescope.
    • mozert, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1"cooler"? if I remember the r^3 spherical versus r^2 planar rule then you have everything wrong.
    • aelias, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3I was listening to something from TED if I remember right, saying it was a common misconception that the Universe is expanding like a globe. Instead, it's more like a plate. A flat Universe, being squished on both sides by dark matter.
      • dlite922, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1URL or it didn't happen. I dugg it anyways though, just for good faith.
    • desertDenizen, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2The bell isn't the shape of directional expansion; there's a Y-axis showing rate of expansion over time. So massive expansion initially, then slow, and now increasing slowly. It would be better if they had labeled the Y-axis.
  • FuckXboxx, on 05/18/2008, -19/+78The universe is shaped like the liberty bell.
    • evilesttoast, on 05/18/2008, -5/+20america, ***** yeah
    • BodomX, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3Looks like a tube.
      • FuckXboxx, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1In literary use, a metaphor (from the Greek: metapherin rhetorical trope) is defined as an indirect comparison between two or more seemingly unrelated subjects that typically uses "is a" to join the first subjects.
      • MasterThief117, on 05/18/2008, -0/+15So, the Internet is a series of universes?
    • p0tent1al, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7Let freedom ring
    • Jabertsohn, on 05/18/2008, -0/+21This is a graph showing the expansion of the universe against time. It does not depict the actual shape of the universe.
    • jasdf, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5I was thinking it looked more like a shot glass, but we all know America is the center of the universe so...
    • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -4/+0no it isn't...
    • bonedead, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Looks like a nostril. Achoo!
  • Bologner, on 05/18/2008, -39/+92HEATHENS! Everyone knows the Earth is 6,000 years old and flat!
    • chrisduser, on 05/18/2008, -8/+2Quite, subhuman.
    • DYNAMICENTRYYY, on 05/18/2008, -5/+28Epoch fail.
      • CobaltBlue, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Nice. I imagine some of us get it.
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 05/18/2008, -5/+1Hey guys, I understand it – I must be smarter than people who don't
    • TacticalPenguin, on 05/18/2008, -3/+38Sigh. Because some people still don't get it, I'll add it on for him:
      /sarcasm
      • styx31989, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0It's kind of sad when think about it.
        • djk21108, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1The grammar that sentence no sense.
    • Phyraxus, on 05/18/2008, -3/+5Poe's law
      http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/18/2008, -9/+3Yeah the Catholic church imprisoned Galileo for theorizing that the Earth was round and orbited the sun instead of flat and the center of the universe.

      Just like they still claim that the Earth is about 6000 years old. These views of the church are simply long standing opinions of Catholic leaders and not anything written in the scriptures.

      So it's not heretical to claim the Earth is much older.
    • JimmySpaza, on 05/18/2008, -11/+11Only some Christians and believers in other religions believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. I'm a Christian and believe that the earth is about 4 billion years old.

      Thou shalt not assume.
      • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -11/+5im afraid religion and science cannot coexist
        • BigW, on 05/18/2008, -2/+8They've coexisted just fine for quite some time now....
          Only closed minds think that science and religion can't coexist.
        • Jereso, on 05/18/2008, -6/+3Religions are fancy stories shown to show moral values, it's easy for them to co-exist.
      • SuperWinner, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3But, where jeebus?
      • elcapitanp, on 05/18/2008, -4/+2Yeah, but if you believed the bible, you would believe the world is 6000 years old. You are just drifting towards the dark side of science of and logic. Come all the way, join the free thinkers, I AM YOUR FATHERRRR>>>>****^^^^
        • soupdawg30, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4Where in the Bible does it say the world is 6000 years old?
        • Diderotten, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1dawg: Ask the creationists.
        • elcapitanp, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Counteth the generations from Adam to Jesus.
      • soupdawg30, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology.
    • elcapitanp, on 05/18/2008, -4/+5I love how bologner's statement has paralyzed diggers. At the time of this writing bologner has his/her default 1 digg. No one is sure if he/she is being sarcastic or serious, so his/her digg count remains in its pristine state! Is bologner a fundy or is bolgner scientifically literate? I will investigate this bologner and digg appropriately...
      • elcapitanp, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2I searched his/her profile, and I did not find. I got nothing. I suspect that he/she is not a fundy (not your typical one) but you can never be too sure nowadays. I would like to be clear that I HAVE BEEN DRINKING....
    • morpheus9602, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2You know you make me laugh........................HA!!!
    • Lemethe, on 05/18/2008, -3/+4Many of us are intellectuals and Christians. Its not hard. Like anything, you have to say 'screw your stereotypes' and investigate for yourself. I love being Christian and view physics as the "how God did it" the Bibles focus inst on 'how' as much as it is 'what'.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism
      • djk21108, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Well you've taught me one thing. Lemethe is afraid of commitment: can't decide science or his faith.

        There is no middle ground. Once you nullify one church teaching you must nullify all of them. If one story is false then how can you justify the validity of any of them?
  • s0m31john, on 05/18/2008, -56/+26Why do you hate Jesus? Cause that's all I see in that big picture, just 'I hate Jesus' in big red letters.
    • Acglaphotis, on 05/18/2008, -1/+10Hmmm, seems like you need glasses.
    • SQLserver, on 05/18/2008, -1/+32Joking, right?




      right?
    • lgm1213, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6lol
    • 1randomguyO8, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7Because the bible is 100% true derr..
      /s
      • tschau, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3See s0m31john is actually good at sarcasm, so he didn't need to put the /s after what he said. Apparently you're also bad at detecting it though, because you seem to think he was serious.
    • Phyraxus, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8Poe's Law
      http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
    • SLockhart, on 05/18/2008, -5/+4The Big Bang in no way contradicts the bible. Something or someone had to initiate the bang. That is why some scientists dislike the theory; it leaves too much room for God.
    • nicksauce, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7Assuming you're joking, that was actually really funny.
      • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2I read it in Will Ferrel's voice from Talladega Nights.
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3Why do you believe that Jesus was the son of 'God' and not just an ordinary man who preached messages of love and peace?
      • SLockhart, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1That he is God is debatable, that he claimed to be God is not.
        • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Hmmm....
          I'm thinking someone has read their His Dark Materials.

          Do you get all of your philosophy from fiction books?
        • Murdats, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1that he existed to make such claims is debatable.
        • SLockhart, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Never heard of that book. If you read the bible you'll see that Jesus definitely claimed to be God. Also his existence isn't seriously debated by liberal scholars anymore. We know Jesus of Nazereth was a real person.
        • chrgrose, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Its about as debatable as whether or not Gilgamesh said it is written that he said.
  • nagayoshi, on 05/18/2008, -7/+124Dude, I still want to know where the particles that started the big bang came from.
    • tunafizzle, on 05/18/2008, -36/+18God's cum, he nutted all up in that *****.
    • uziko, on 05/18/2008, -2/+36exactly, i get that there was a small ball of dense energy and it exploded, but i want to know

      1. where it came from
      2. what happened before it went Kaboom!
      • vap0r, on 05/18/2008, -6/+13There is no "before". Time itself was created when it went Kaboom.
        • sspringall, on 05/18/2008, -15/+9Energy is neither created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. If God didn't create it, then there is no physical law to support a big bang made from nothing
        • drstock, on 05/18/2008, -9/+10sspringall: Read up on quantum fluctuations, zero point energy and quantum mechanics in general. Makes it easier not to make an ass of yourself on the internets.
        • benhollister, on 05/18/2008, -2/+9I don't know why, but I've always seen the universe as infinite oscillations, going from Big Bang to existence to Unity to Big Bang, et cetera.
        • DuffyDirect, on 05/18/2008, -5/+10drstock, i don't think you have "read up on anything" sounds like you've just been watching star-gate and are throwing out terms to look like a pseudo-intellectual.
        • matadata, on 05/18/2008, -6/+3You packed an impressive amount of logical fallacies in your last sentence, sspringall. I'm stunned.
        • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1thats too much to fathom
        • uziko, on 05/18/2008, -9/+4thats ***** *****, i can't stand that people keep saying that, what a ***** cop out, it's impossible for time to start, theres always something before it

          heres the real answer: we don't know and you think your smart and have the answers when your actually, a dumbass
        • mclaincausey, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5uziko
          It is not impossible for time to start, you just don't know your physics. As Einstein hypothesized, space and time are part of the same fabric. Space-time, and thus time, had a definite beginning 13.7 billion years ago, and that isn't a cop out. Experimental data strongly supports this hypothesis.

          Sspringall
          There is no physical law to support a God either.
        • manogamez, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3It is currently impossible to determine what happened 'before' the big bang as there was no before. However, we can delve deeper and deeper into that exact moment when it all happened. Our current understanding is limited to the Planck epoch (10^-43 seconds).

          This is one of the reasons why the large Hadron collider will be so useful. it will enable us to create big-bang like 'reactions' and examine them more thoroughly.
      • 1randomguyO8, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6You're not alone.
      • djlosch, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4well, at first it started slow and boring. then a little action started up and it got hotter. then the action picked up, and the pressure started building up. things started getting really really hot and really heavy, and then the pressure built up some more, and it couldn't be held in any longer, and it finally exploded.

        true story. i read it on the internet.
      • neilcreek, on 05/18/2008, -2/+8"Where" makes no sense, as space appeared with the universe.

        "Before" also makes no sense, as time also appeared with the universe.

        The problem we have with understanding it is that our minds evolved to cope with a world of when and where on a particular scale. Things outside that realm seem confusing, but that doesn't mean they don't make sense. A vastly widened first hand appreciation of the universe on all scales might make these answers seem obvious, or even irrelevent.
        • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1well said, as unfathomable as it is.
        • mclaincausey, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1I disagree that "before" doesn't make sense. Space-time came into being with the Big Bang and inflation, but there is still a "before" and there were events in that "before" that caused the Big Bang. All you have to do is picture yourself as an observer outside of the universe, instead of within it, and then "before" makes perfect sense. There is no experimental data from "before" but we may be able to figure out what happened and there are already some nice theories.
        • manogamez, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Causality was created along with time.

          In fact, what 'caused' the Big Bang could in fact be something AFTER the big bang. You must let go of your obsession with time.
        • neilcreek, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1"Outside" doesn't make sense either, as there is no outside. By definition, the universe is everything. It's like saying 'at the corner of a circle'.

          As mangomez says, causation is an artefact of our mind's view of the universe. There are causeless events everywhere throught the universe (eg matter/antimatter particles appearing and annihilating each other without any prior event causing the event). The appearence of the universe could be such a causeless event.
    • matadata, on 05/18/2008, -1/+9They weren't particles necessarily, but I agree. I want to know what happened before it. To me, it seems obvious that the universe couldn't have just emerged from nothingness. The idea that there has been a infinite cycles of big bangs and "big crushes" is one angle. I get the feeling that it's a little more complicated than that, though.
      • matadata, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2Freudian slip there... I meant "big crunches." lol
      • mclaincausey, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3Well what is "nothingness?" According to the quantum theory, even a vacuum has quantum fluctuations. One of these fluctuations could have caused a bubble to emerge from the vacuum; that bubble is our multiverse. Inflationary cosmology holds that prior to the Big Bang, there was a "false vacuum," that is, a vacuum that wasn't quite at the lowest possible energy state. False vacuums are unstable, and the collapse of this is possibly what caused inflation to occur.
      • jemman, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2If you interested you can google other explanations of how universe works. My personal favorite is 'Plasma Universe' theory. To me it is a much more practical and testable theory on how the universe operates. The following link contains short synopsis about it and has other links for further reading.

        http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=2
      • GavinZac, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1There is no such thing as "before the big bang". its like asking what is north of the north pole. "before" and "after" are words we came up with to describe the flow of time. The flow of time has no meaning at singularity; space and time are related so without space, there is no time.
    • Wakuko, on 05/18/2008, -9/+5Infinite pressure applied to the void creates matter and liberates infinite energy.

      There, the answer to all our questions...
      • Vector713, on 05/18/2008, -2/+9Where did said pressure come from?
      • tschau, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7not to be sappy about science, but...

        that sounds beautiful.
        • manogamez, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Inflationary theory is quite elegant. A good astronomy book can be as entertaining as, dare I say it, DIGG.
      • dsotmrw, on 05/18/2008, -2/+0Echoing Vector713 - what was applying the pressure?
      • FyUoCuK, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0Pressure is defined by the amount of force (which has to be exerted BY something) per unit acting on a surface area. There has to be stuff before there is pressure.
    • 0akley, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5the big bang is the other end of a black hole in another universe, a white hole.... o_O
      • Razormane11, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1This is actually a unique way of looking at it. Haven't thought of that before. Although hooking our universe to another only doubles the problems. Eventually you have to explain where it came from. And I doubt we will ever be able to fully explain that.
      • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1no...
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 05/18/2008, -20/+15That's kind of the reason I still believe in a higher power.
      • matadata, on 05/18/2008, -5/+4Presumptuous and vague. It was fire power, not higher power.
        Z==D ---- pew pew
      • mclaincausey, on 05/18/2008, -4/+10That doesn't make any sense. Just because something is difficult to understand doesn't mean you have to throw up your hands and embrace metaphysical explanations. A higher power doesn't solve the riddle either. For instance, if God created the universe, then who created God? There could be physical properties that we simply don't understand yet which could explain all of cosmology without the need for involving speculative metaphysical postulates.
        • manogamez, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1The concept of G.O.D. is anti-causal. He is neither created nor can be destroyed. This concept is actually more complex than you think, you should give it a chance in your mind. It's always good to think about the universe.

          And I dugg you up because I realize the frustration you have with the GOD concept and I'm glad you're thinking about it instead of just trashing us religious people as just dimwits.
        • UncleHumjaba, on 05/18/2008, -3/+4Watch out... Mention God on Digg and it's as if you had badmouthed Ron Paul or you had run around insulting everyone's mother.

          To say that a higher being started it all is no more ignorant than to say that it all just appeared out of nowhere.

          Is it possible that in this vast realm of things we don't know there exists sufficient evidence to prove a higher being exists? I'm not arguing that one explanation is better than the other - just that those who believe aren't as ignorant as you make them out to be.

          I agree with manogamez though - at least there was some thought behind your bashing of this higher being concept, as opposed to the usual "OMFG GOD DOESNT EXIST LAWLS YOU ARE STOOPID"

        • mclaincausey, on 05/24/2008, -0/+0Well I disagree with the following statement:

          "To say that a higher being started it all is no more ignorant than to say that it all just appeared out of nowhere."

          That's a false dichomoty. Whether or not there's a God, something came out of nowhere at some point. I think that it is more ignorant to make assumptions than it is to say "I don't know."
      • jimv1983, on 05/18/2008, -1/+4Where did the higher power come from? Did it always exist? Why can't it be that the universe always existed! 1. Big Bang Happens! 2. Universe expands and cools! 3. Universe collapses. 4. The wholes process repeats.

      • chrgrose, on 05/18/2008, -3/+7I believe in higher powers too. Like gravity, and the strong nuclear force.
        • ldailey06, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1pshh gravity is weak, electromagnetic is where its at! 40 orders of magnitude better, in fact.
      • willemvzyl, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5This is a 'God of the Gaps' argument. Believing in a higher power because we don't yet have a scientific explanation for certain parts of nature means that every time we do find a new answer, God becomes smaller and smaller... It's a very bad argument that doesn't explain anything (see mclaincausey's and jimv1983's comments above: Who created God?).

        The argument reminds me of creationists who want to teach ID alongside Evolution in science classroom just for religion's sake. ID doesn't deliver research results that improve our knowledge of the world, help with the development of better foods, medicines, and vaccines like Evolutionary Theory does, it's a dead-end, a conversation-stopper (like Harris said).

        Whenever someone religious asserts that "God created the Universe" or "God created Life", they're effectively saying, "Don't spoil these mysteries by investigating and understanding them, rather give them to us, religion can use them". :/
        • flip2trip, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2willemvzyl
          You are bundling everyone who believes in God into a nice little box for yourself. There are plenty of people, including myself, who hold beliefs that are not threatened by scientific research in any way. Just don't expect me, or anyone else to just accept a discovery as "absolute" truth, because as we all know continued research often disproves current finds. The point is we are constantly learning new things about our earth and the universe as a whole and it is important not to close ourselves off from any further discussion.
        • jimv1983, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Do we have the answers to everything? Obviously NO. Will we ever have the answers to everything? Maybe. That does not mean that everything cannot be explained by science. The supernatural(god,ghosts,etc..) is just things we have not been able to explain by science YET.
    • DiggCommando, on 05/18/2008, -5/+15Welcome to the frustration of realizing our brains are probably too small to grasp the answer and less so the new questions that it would undoubtedly create.
      • laconix, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5But we need to come up with something, it can even be remotely plausible, as to how the universe was born.

        I haven't ever heard a logical explanation, though I have heard a minority of which are slightly credible;
        *The universe has always been here, and
        -How has the universe always been here, how can something always be and never be made?
        *There was nothing before the universe, not even time. Time itself only exists within the universe. When the universe was created, time was also created.
        -Hard to understand, but, then how did the universe get created. It doesn't really address the question.

        God is not the answer, that just opens a whole other bag of questions just waiting to be answered with the same answer; God. Don't humour me with it. :)
        • Esstee, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3Its a paradox, and by the looks of it, we may never(ever) comes to terms with this problem. It was written that it is because we ourselves are all subject to creation that that the thought of eternity without an origin becomes unconceivable to us. Though, this is certainly not an answer, it is and interested concept nonetheless.
        • brian1625, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3Pardon the 5th inquiry, but I can't even wrap my mind around "Nothingness" let alone how "that" - not sure how it could be a "that" -- created some-thing. "No-Thing" in it self is an oxymoron. So "How Nothing Become Something", appears to be a nonsensical question because how is nothing, no-thing?

          How can things always be? never mind that question -- how about, how can things "not-be"? When "not-being" doesn't even make any god damn sense.
        • Esstee, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2@ brian1625 - Pass the pipe please.... :p
        • eir574, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1@brian,

          Remember that matter and energy are interchangeable. I'm not a physicist and I also have trouble wrapping my brain around some of their theories, but I've found this page to be a good read to get a sense of what at least some physicists are thinking these days: http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctua ... .
      • uziko, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2it has nothing to do with us not understanding it

        WE DON'T ***** KNOW IT, THERES NOTHING TO UNDERSTAND YET

        i'm sick of these stupid phrases people keep repeating like "our brains can't comprehend it" THERES NOTHING TO ***** COMPREHEND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE, that is what this whole "research" thing is about ya know?
    • protito, on 05/18/2008, -8/+7God farted
    • jozb, on 05/18/2008, -2/+6someone correct me if I'm wrong, but heres my version.
      imagine you are living inside a game (like gta, or sims). before you start the game there exists nothing, but once you start the game, everything suddenly appears. how would a character inside the game explain where all the stuff came from.

      also if you have accidentally fallen of the map in any game, you might have seen it's just totally empty space there and seems to go on forever, this could explain how our universe is also limitless.

      memory in a game could also be like energy in our universe. from inside the game, you cannot add additional memory (sticks) or destroy it, but you can change it to show whatever you need to represent inside the game.

      i don't know but it seems to make a little sense. just like our hurricanes and galaxies have similar spiral, our universe and our computer/games could be related.
    • jcb8060, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Something to do with branes colliding.
    • cosmicv, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2There was no time before space/time, unless you include some external time frame...which just pushes the problem back a level. This is the problem with the big bang theory, if you take external time out of the picture, there could be NO time where the universe didn't exist...thereby removing the need to project a cause. It simply IS...and for you theists out there, its the same principle if you project a god and ask where he came from. You would simply say he IS. Occam's razor would beg to differ since the projection of a god that aways is, is two layers more complex an answer then just stating the universe always was.
    • dbacker, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Why do you want to know how the big bang started? What significance would that have in your world? Please don't tell me this is about that invisible guy in the sky that you can blame your sins on again. Have you ever considered questioning the motives of those who plant these thoughts in your mind? Give real science a chance, figure out that it offers complexity you can spend your life on researching and discussing. Do rock the cradle of authority, but be careful about asking questions outside the realm of known science because it can show your ignorance rather then intelligence.
    • chicken59, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Xenu.
    • lucutus, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2TIC TIC TIC BooWhooosh the gas ignites.
      Quickly the immediate area gets very hot.
      Shortly it cools and gets dark as the pot of water is introduced.
      Over time the water begins to boil.
      Oil and salt mix together in the boiling water.
      Enter into the water the very dense particles of semolina.
      The semolina attracts the surrounding elements and begins to expand.

      This my friends is how the flying spaghetti monster was born to bless us with his wet noodley appendage.
  • tunafizzle, on 05/18/2008, -27/+5The universe is shaped like a stubby dick.
    • Ganja360, on 05/18/2008, -1/+0it's a black hole.... the singularity at the 'Bang' and the expansion of the resulting geometric framework (64- tetrahedral matrix/lattice) driven by space-time direction
  • th3heretic, on 05/18/2008, -5/+148Where are the turtles to hold it up?
  • mach32, on 05/18/2008, -17/+3S T U N N I N G
  • SecrtAgntMan, on 05/18/2008, -17/+3Now whats that satellite thing on the right???

    I didn't know life existed right when the Big Bang occurred.
    • Exbzurq, on 05/18/2008, -1/+13Its a nibblonian satellite. When the big bang occurred their civilization was already 17 years old.
    • shirosamurai, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Wow, you really failed on that one.
  • qbthemc, on 05/18/2008, -20/+0I never knew there was something called a Universe.
  • hanalex, on 05/18/2008, -13/+7it looks cool but i wish i could understand it.
  • rocketman42, on 05/18/2008, -6/+98I can see my house!
  • o3rat, on 05/18/2008, -7/+46Whats that black stuff around the universe?
    • tunafizzle, on 05/18/2008, -12/+3poo
    • zzz@tkz, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5Nothingness. Literately.
      • Saladas, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2What is Nothingness???, if we are in Nothingness, then where are we or what are we!!! Nothing??
      • fajitamelt, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Space is the "stuff" between matter. The "stuff" is nothing. Which is space.
        • Murdats, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1nothing is not space.
          nothing would be where not even space is.
      • frnzkfk, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0well, you need to be alittle more precise cause people like fajitamelt will misinterpret that cause "nothingness" could mean a void (space) or a literal nothing--a lack of even space. the later is whats is "around" the universe. no space for things to even be in, let alone things.
        • Dominoooo, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1So the 'nothing outside the nothing' is like the hard barriers on the maps in Halo?
      • mclaincausey, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0No, it isn't nothingness, it is intergalactic space. It would have near vacuum where atoms are few and far between, but it would also have quantum fluctuations in which matter and energy spring into being out of apparent nothingness, it would have electromagnetic energy and whatever energy constitutes gravity. There would also be dark matter and dark energy.
        • Murdats, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1uh wouldn't intergalactic space be between galaxies? not outside the universe?
    • ZeroIce, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5Mind *****
    • TremorX, on 05/18/2008, -1/+20The Outerverse.

      Oh yeah.
    • nard3456, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8The stuff that separates us from other universes
    • SirBrittanicus, on 05/18/2008, -2/+9Internet.
    • DiggCommando, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6Good question, but all the answers on here are incorrect. People rarely ask why the universe is black because they assume that it is nothingness. What makes the universe black is precisely the "dark ages" in pictured in this illustration, when the initial burst of energy first cooled and condensed to matter but there were still no stars (which clumped together as the matter cooled further), therefore no light shone anywhere in the universe. Remember that as we look outward we look into the past, so the darkness you see when you look up into the night sky is caused by one of the earlier states of the universe.
      • aelias, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2I thought it was the dark matter squishing the outer boundaries, giving us the edge of the known observable space.
      • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1I'm a time-traveler!
      • Ramble, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1You have to remember what is now background microwave radiation was once light, so that statement isn't completely accurate.
    • birdman14, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1exact same question popped in my head right when i saw the pic.. of course, it isss one of the most important questions ever.
    • theboozer, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes.
    • ChromaVita, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Dark matter.
    • jinxplayer, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Space....tard...
    • ws0007351, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1everything that's not in the "universe"
    • ldailey06, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2That area around the universe is called a BACKGROUND. They made it black because it looks good with their diagram, it doesn't represent anything. The universe encompasses all of space and time, so there isn't any "space" outside of the universe.
    • GavinZac, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1RON PAUL
  • Nath4n, on 05/18/2008, -6/+233That's one big ass satallite
    • DeskFlyer, on 05/18/2008, -2/+63No it's a big ass-satellite.
    • mrm3x1can, on 05/18/2008, -1/+18i usually hate when people write this but i literally LOL'ed XD
      • schoondigg, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3Me too. Glad I wasn't drinking anything at the time, because I would have shorted out my keyboard.
    • CobaltBlue, on 05/18/2008, -1/+12That's not a satellite, that's a space station!
    • SuperWinner, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8Its too big to be a space station
      • jp12380, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2You are right, but it's definitely not too big to be a satellite.
    • OrangeSoda31, on 05/18/2008, -6/+1UFO?
  • mknphotos, on 05/18/2008, -14/+9I hadn't realized that the big bang was directional.
    • Kazanoe, on 05/18/2008, -2/+13Of course it is.
      The universe is obviously Goku's Kamehameha, you can tell by the shape.
      • ajt2009, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0of course, why didn't i realize it before?
    • imightbewrong, on 05/18/2008, -0/+12in terms of time it is
    • Ganja360, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0space/time direction
  • JoeB4ever, on 05/18/2008, -14/+2My last girlfriends name was "big bang"
    • xXdredgXx, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3were you "little bang"?
    • Poweroft, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Why did people digg that down. That's hillarious.
  • SQLserver, on 05/18/2008, -11/+2I've had this as my avatar on several forums for almost a year.
    • imnojezus, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5Well maybe you should have posted it on Digg back then, ya selfish bastard.
      /kidding
  • Derelict267, on 05/18/2008, -4/+36If you look closely enough you can see the monolith.
  • Connormac44, on 05/18/2008, -10/+2Wuh?
  • thallium205, on 05/18/2008, -2/+20Where did the quantum fluctuations come from?
  • lopla, on 05/18/2008, -25/+19The title of that image should be called "The Power of the Lord", to think it all came into existence in just 4,000yrs. Incredible! Praise God, America & our President!
  • mjklaser, on 05/18/2008, -6/+1Wicked Cool!