The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

The Big Bang theory is not a sufficient explanation for creation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,011 times Debate No: 4816
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (13)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Basically, I'm saying that the Big Bang theory cannot be completely true, in short, the world could not have been created solely through the Big Bang. Just a quick parameter, this debate is really geared towards science and physics rather than metaphysics, as I only have time for a short debate.

According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common and useful analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. (Wikipedia) So this runs into two issues. One, the creation of this primordial matter is not explained. If it just has always been there, then it would pretty much be going against all of common knowledge, and physics. There had to be a beginning, and if the matter has always existed, than there would be no beginning. Also, the creation of nonphysical properties is not explained by the Big Bang model. Logic, the laws of physics, did they burst out of the mass as well. I think not. These two examples show that the Big Bang alone cannot create everything,and the Universe is everything.

I challenge my opponent to resolve these issues.
Puck

Con

"According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common and useful analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread."

The analogy is a bit off as the typography of the universe is somewhat flatter than that.

"One, the creation of this primordial matter is not explained. If it just has always been there, then it would pretty much be going against all of common knowledge, and physics. There had to be a beginning, and if the matter has always existed, than there would be no beginning."

Big Bang Theory does NOT state matter has "always existed". This is how it formed:

In the beginning (sorry, little joke, I couldn't resist), there was not yet any matter. There was however a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete parcels (photons). When photons have enough energy, they spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. An antiparticle is the exact opposite of the corresponding particle. For example, a proton has charge +e, so an antiproton has charge -e. We observe this today. Gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-anti-electron pairs (the anti-electron is a positron). The photon is just one of a class of particles, labelled bosons that decay in this manner. Many of the bosons from just after the big bang were energetic enough that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons ( E=mc^2, so to make a particle with a large mass m, you need a boson with a high energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays.

Protons and neutrons are particles called baryons. Baryogenesis is the creation of baryons. The current understanding of particle physics (called the standard model) , tells us that nowadays the number of baryons is nearly constant, with only a small variation due to quantum mechanical tunnelling. In the early universe, the temperatures were much higher, therefore this tunnelling was commonplace and a large number of baryons would have been created. Electroweak refers to the time period in question. When the electromagnetic and weak forces were decoupling from a single force into 2 separate forces between 10^-12 and 10^-6 seconds after the big bang, (matter -antimatter asymmetry probably would have formed towards the end). An additional source of baryons is due to leptons (another type of particle, including electrons) can be converted into baryons at this epoch.

In our universe, the first few minutes were hot and dense enough for protons and neutrons (baryons) to fuse to create deuterium, helium and lithium. These elements have density, density produces gravity, and gravity draws other elements together, which in turn increases density/gravity i.e. star making super factories.

Can we see baryons? Yes we can. Thanks to Hubble and Cassini the "missing" baryons in the universe have been shown to exist where we thought they would be - in the space between galaxies.

(As an aside, much jumping and partying was to be had upon this discovery, it was quite an important feat. :D)

"Also, the creation of nonphysical properties is not explained by the Big Bang model. Logic, the laws of physics, did they burst out of the mass as well. I think not."

Well yes and no. Physical constants are measurable forces/ attributes of this set universe. A theory that can explain the formation of the universe by default explains the presence of those components in the set universe.

To forestall any anthropomorphic principle arguments let me explain by example: I have a coin in front of me. The probability that the next coin I toss will be heads is 50 percent. The probability that the last one I tossed was heads is zero. No calculation or theory is necessary: I toss it 20 times and I arrive at t,t,h,t,h,t,h,t,h,h,h,t,t,h,h,h,t,t,h,h. The chances of that particular sequence were around 1/1ooo ooo before I did it. Now it has happened and the probability is one. If I had flipped differently, then I could have produced a different series, also with a prior probability of one in a million.

The same goes for the natural laws of this universe. If the conditions of the early universe had been such that stars never condensed, or if the strong force didn't exist and the periodic table had fewer entries, or if anything else had been different, then we may not be here. It however makes little sense to talk about the universe being improbable after the event. The conditional probability of the universe being as it is, given the existence of observers to marvel at it, that conditional probability is either exactly one or near enough to not matter.

Can an observer exist without the physical constants as they are? Most probably. The "fine tuned universe" is somewhat of a myth. For example, the weak force is responsible for the radioactive beta decay of atomic nuclei and is held essential for a complex universe like ours. Take it away, and you might expect the 'weakless' universe to be vastly different from our own. Modelling shows the forging of elements in the big bang, the powering of stars and supernovae explosions in a weakless universe is still capable of supporting observers. In fact by changing several parameters simultaneously it’s found that entirely new processes - such as different mechanisms for stellar burning come into play (possible super symmetry).

How exactly can Big Bang Theory NOT explain physical/cosmological constants? The burden lies not only with me. Pro must show, through physics as he as requested, that the laws of the universe are inconsistent with Big Bang Theory. “Nah they just couldn't isn't an argument. You asked for a physics debate, let's see it then. Simply because something is a constant does not necessitate its formation as impossible through natural processes.

I can in the next round, if you like, show you "theories of everything", explore quantum physics with our readers, and delve into singularities, multitudes of universes and constants. However until you can show why Big Bang Theory fails to explain our own, I see no point.

Back to you.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"The analogy is a bit off as the typography of the universe is somewhat flatter than that."

Good point, I just copy pasted from Wiki on that one, as its explanation was far more eloquent than mine.

"Big Bang Theory does NOT state matter has 'always existed'."

I won't quote your whole explanation, but in short, your explanation still requires photons and other forms of energy. Both energy and matter cannnot be created or destroyed, except through the metamorphosis per se between the two. The energy itself still requires an explanation for its existence, and while there may be one, the Big bang model does not provide the explanation. Also in the beginning an equal number baryons and antibaryons should have been formed. However, in the most distant parts of the universe, there is almost exclusively baryonic matter. This is an unexplainable symmetry that the Big Bang should not have caused.

"Well yes and no. Physical constants are measurable forces/ attributes of this set universe. A theory that can explain the formation of the universe by default explains the presence of those components in the set universe."

Let me rephrase, if logic and the laws of physics weren't present until the big bang, than logic and physics couldn't be applied to the big bang, in which case, none of the scientific theories and hypotheses can confirmed. If it was there, than it wasn't created by the big bang, in which case the big bang model is not a sufficient explanation. This is the logical conundrum which which makes the big bang model insufficient.

I hope I have provided a sufficient response, and I'm sorry that this debate is only two rounds long, as it would have proved to be even more interesting. Thank you for participating in this interesting debate.
Puck

Con

"The energy itself still requires an explanation for its existence, and while there may be one, the Big bang model does not provide the explanation. Also in the beginning an equal number baryons and antibaryons should have been formed. However, in the most distant parts of the universe, there is almost exclusively baryonic matter. This is an unexplainable symmetry that the Big Bang should not have caused."

Yes this is what I referred to as baryonic asymmetry. The universe favoured matter over antimatter. This does not invalidate Big Bang Theory at all. It is analogous to stating "We don't fully understand Abiogenesis, so life could not have started this way." Exotic particles, ( X-bosons), formed in the first instant after the big bang and for reasons still unknown decayed preferentially to matter rather than antimatter. Theory suggests that antimatter reactions should mirror corresponding matter reactions in all respects. However, experiments with a particle called the neutral kaon (a quark-antiquark pair) show that, occasionally, this is not true. An equal mix of neutral kaons and their antiparticles decays to give an unequal amount of matter and antimatter, showing that the antimatter mirror is in some ways "flawed" (the term for this asymmetry is CP violation).

As for the energy itself, sudden expansion from a singularity is the creative force of this. A singularity is an object of infinite density and mass. The amount of energy released by such an object at the moment of expansion would have been immense. This is where photons arrived from, which are essentially elemental quantum objects of energy, both particle and wave.

"Let me rephrase, if logic and the laws of physics weren't present until the big bang, than logic and physics couldn't be applied to the big bang, in which case, none of the scientific theories and hypotheses can confirmed. If it was there, than it wasn't created by the big bang, in which case the big bang model is not a sufficient explanation. This is the logical conundrum which which makes the big bang model insufficient."

Logic in the strict term is of course not applied to quantum or cosmological theory. Logic is a tool administered to arguments and statements. It can be applied to mathematical proofs but it is not the foundation for them. You are correct in stating the laws of standard physics were not present until the moment of expansion; however we also don't use them to explain the big bang singularity itself. A singularity due to its size is small enough to be considered a quantum mechanical object, and it is quantum theories that are used in its explanations. Quantum components and its rules existed because the singularity was present.

Which brings us to a tidy close. Matter has been explained, baryonic asymmetry certainly doesn't negate the Big Bang Theory, and it is quantum principles that govern the big bang, not the constants after.

An interesting topic, thanks for the speedy reply and non forfeits.
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Of course you do. *pats head*
Posted by water123 8 years ago
water123
god created the universe i have proof the BIBLE FIRST CHAPTER
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
And if you want to take it a step further, few things outside predicate logic and a couple of other ideas are actually provable at all.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Relativity is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. Existence, dynamics and structure of atoms is...Atomic theory.

Theory in the scientific domain is a very precise label.
Posted by skpeejay 8 years ago
skpeejay
Interesting DEBATE, ...

But, you should know, the BIG BANG THEORY is only a THEORY, it was not yet proven,,,

THEORY and FACTS are in DIFFERENT WORLDS,.

Anyway thanks for an interesting DEBATE,,, PUCK Enlightened me with some things i did not understand,,, BUT THEORY is a THEORY,

AND FACTS ARE FACTS.. ^^
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I don't think Puck showed that the big bang theory, in and of itself, can explain how the universe was created. He does show that it is reasonable that as science develops we will find more definitive answers that we just don't know how to measure yet, but that does not refute the resolution. I too believe in time we will learn more that will explain more, but that assumption automatically admits that I don't currently have evidence of such information.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Perhaps I should of been clearer. The matter as we see in this set universe is largely a result of what occured after the initial expansion. Matter in the singularity can be explained in a number of quantum theories like quantum loop theory, or 5 dimensional space (which relativity supports).
Posted by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
The big bang theory requires there to matter already existing, therefore it is not a sufficient explanation for creation.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Not a problem. I'm happy to provide answers to any other questions you have in the area.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Thank you for an interesting debate, although this was more of a learning experience, and an answer to some questions I had.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
LR4N6FTW4EVAPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
LR4N6FTW4EVAPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by apathy77 8 years ago
apathy77
LR4N6FTW4EVAPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ecstatica 8 years ago
ecstatica
LR4N6FTW4EVAPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by skpeejay 8 years ago
skpeejay
LR4N6FTW4EVAPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 8 years ago
aaltobartok
LR4N6FTW4EVAPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
LR4N6FTW4EVAPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 8 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
LR4N6FTW4EVAPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
LR4N6FTW4EVAPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
LR4N6FTW4EVAPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30