The Big Bang Is Hard Science. It Is Also a Creation Story.

[n2doc]

BY BARRY B. POWELL

In some ways, the history of science is the history of a philosophical resistance to mythical explanations of reality. In the ancient world, when we asked “Where did the world come from?” we were told creation myths. In the modern world, we are instead told a convincing scientific story: Big Bang theory, first proposed in 1927 by the Belgian Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. It is based on observations that galaxies appear to be flying apart from one another, suggesting that the universe is expanding. We trace this movement back in space and time to nearly the original point of the explosion, the single original atom from which all the universe emerged 14 billion years ago.

While it is based on empirical measurement and quantitative reasoning, it is also a creation story, and therefore shares some of the traits of the stories that have come before. For one thing, it resonates with the ethos of the modern age—this is the era of big explosions, like those in White Sands and over Nagasaki. Also, like all creation stories, it explains in comprehensible language something which otherwise requires unobtainable categories of thought. After all, we cannot really know what the world was like before its creation. But we do see how things around us change, grow, are born, and die. And, like the ancients, we fashion these observations into the story of our creation.

The oldest creation myth on the planet, from perhaps 2600 B.C., was given as a preface to a Sumerian poem about the descent of Gilgamesh’s friend Enkidu into the underworld.1 The account begins:

After heaven had been moved away from earth,
After earth had been separated from heaven,
After the name of man had been fixed;
After An had carried off heaven,
After Enlil had carried off Ki…

At some time, the myth tells us, heaven and earth were united, and then they were separated. The separation of Sky and Earth made possible the appearance of man. The poem introduces us to elements that we see repeated again and again in ancient myths: First, creation was not from nothing, which you never find in ancient myth, but from something that was already there. What was it? In a tablet listing the Sumerian gods, the goddess Nammu is said to be “the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth” and her name is written as a sign that means “sea.” Second, the act of naming and spoken language is deeply mixed into the act of creating: Man is created only “after [his name] had been fixed.”

more
http://nautil.us/issue/17/big-bangs/the-big-bang-is-hard-science-it-is-also-a-creation-story

[edhopper]

1. Well

it shows humans have always looked for those answers, but this is the first time in history we could answer it with objective data, not made up shit.
It is also a creation story for which those who discovered and and accept it welcome thoughtful, informed challenges to it rather than calling for their execution., which may be a first.

[goldent]

3. What is not mentioned is that there was a scientific theory

before the big band, namely the steady state theory that said everything always existed. Compared to this, the big bang theory was considered outrageous and suspiciously religious. Scientists got over the religious thing, and it became a win-win.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Interesting although pretty much entirely fictional narrative.

What scientists "got over" was a lack of evidence for the "bang", that evidence was discovered, theories changed.

The cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmological redshift-distance relation are together regarded as the best available evidence for the Big Bang theory. Measurements of the CMB have made the inflationary Big Bang theory the Standard Model of Cosmology.[63] The discovery of the CMB in the mid-1960s curtailed interest in alternatives such as the steady state theory.[64]

The CMB essentially confirms the Big Bang theory. In the late 1940s Alpher and Herman reasoned that if there was a big bang, the expansion of the Universe would have stretched and cooled the high-energy radiation of the very early Universe into the microwave region and down to a temperature of about 5 K. They were slightly off with their estimate, but they had exactly the right idea. They predicted the CMB. It took another 15 years for Penzias and Wilson to stumble into discovering that the microwave background was actually there.[65]

The CMB gives a snapshot of the universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thus making the universe transparent to radiation. When it originated some 380,000 years after the Big Bang—this time is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling—the temperature of the universe was about 3000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen.[66]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Relationship_to_the_Big_Bang

Science doesn't work the way you think it does.

[goldent]

11. Scientists are people too

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory. This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

It did not require discovery of background radiation for all scientists to come around to the big bang theory. Many believed without such proof.

John 20:29

[Warren Stupidity]

13. You really do not understand how science works.

"they believed without such proof". No, there were competing theories. Steady state lost out because it had major problems with other data before CBR was discovered, data which better fit with the big bang theory, and the discovery of the predicted CBR was the end of that particular debate. Whatever personal beliefs were held by various people working in the field, the process, the data, were what drove acceptance of the big bang theory and rejection of steady state.

Had this been about beliefs and irrational prejudices there would still be a steady state sect defending its "beliefs" regardless of the data. Science isn't about that. Religion is.

[goldent]

16. Science is performed by real people with real prejudices

What I showed is that some scientists resisted Big Bang because of the connection to a religious story (read my quote above). In other words, their thinking was influenced by their religious (or in this case non-religious) beliefs. Over time, they changed their mind for some reason(s), whether it was more evidence, clearer thinking with an open mind, or peer pressure.

I think you fail to understand that scientists are people and irrational prejudices are a part of it (often pride IMO). As I had said, they obviously got over it.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. The big bang theory isn't a creation story, because creation implies creator.

There's nothing in the theory about a creator. And it is ridiculous to presume so, and disingenuous to attempt to categorize it so.

"Barry B. Powell is the Halls-Bascom Professor of Classics Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has written many books on myth, Homer, and the history of writing."

Well, that explains why he knows zilch about physics or cosmology.

[edhopper]

5. I didn't think about it that way

but after looking at the definition, you are right, the Universe originated or began, it was not created. In fact the BBT is evidence against a creator since none is needed for it to work.

[Leontius]

6. Interesting that you point out his lack of education or degrees in physics sounds like

someone else who has no expertise in a subject that certain people here adore as an expert in said subject.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Lack of credentials, plus obvious logical error.

Author assumes creation. Without supporting that claim.

[Leontius]

9. Repeat post #6.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. I still dont know who you are referring to.

[cbayer]

12. Does creation imply a creator?

It is widely accepted that this universe was created by the big bang. It came from something or it came from nothing, but it was created.

The author makes no claim of being a physicist or cosmologist. He is merely proposing a philosophical theory which can not be proven or disproven, but may still be interesting to some.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. No.

The big bang was the inevitable result of a previous process. A result, not a cause in the strictest sense.

"Even as science reveals new layers of our reality, creation stories remain just that—stories giving us explanations in comprehensible language of something which otherwise requires unobtainable categories of thought."

TBBT isn't a story, it wasn't fabricated to explain the unexplainable. It is a view built on actual evidence, not what sounds reasonable to our ignorance. Incredibly precise evidence, I might add, including viewing gravitational echoes of the first moments of the 'bang' itself. TBBT can be explained rather well without story-making reductionism.

[cbayer]

15. Inevitable result of a previous process?

What process would that be? As I understand it, no one really has any idea at all about what went on before the big bang. We can speculate that there was some kind of "previous process" but the nature of that is really not clear.

I'm not making the argument for a god here, but I am saying that one might not be able to easily rule that out.

And I am certainly not arguing that the big bang is anything but the result of clear scientific inquiry.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. If you look into the recent works by Hawking and Krauss, you'll find the

'bang' is the expected, and in their view, inevitable consequences of a variety of factors.

One cannot, by definition, rule out the existence of a supreme, supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent 'being' that does not wish to be directly perceived by us. (It would violate the idea that it is omnipotent, if we could view it, in contravention of its wishes.)

But we can see whether such a force/being/intelligence is required to 'start' the universe.
Current view is that such a thing is not required.

So we can rule it out as a prerequisite. And frankly, that's good enough for me, unless said being wants to show up and take credit for his/her/its/their work.

Edit: Sorry, Meant to include this, which is inexpensive, a VERY deep and clear view into the question/problem, and also, available in libraries.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/055338466X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410186054&sr=8-1&keywords=stephen+hawking+design

[cbayer]

18. Required - certainly not. Possible - yes.

I agree that it can be ruled out as a prerequisite, but it can't be ruled out.

That's good enough for you but not for everyone.

I've read some Hawkings and heard Krauss speak. They are both interesting, but often come across as more philosophical than scientific.

And, of course, they are way, way over my head.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. The deeper math behind it all is well beyond me.

I can understand the concepts of specific and general relativity, when people like Hawking take the time to explain it slowly, in small words, but I can't work out the time differential between sea level and the orbital plane we put our GPS satellites in, even though I start from a way-head-start cheating my ass off advantage of knowing that time ticks 'faster' the higher you are on the curve of the gravity well of an object like a planet. I also know generally about how much time ticks slower, the greater your relative velocity. Precise values? Couldn't do it. Even knowing that the gravity well itself isn't a beautiful curve like it is often depicted as, as the earth has a 'lumpy' gravity profile, as different parts of the earth are more dense than others, so I also have the advantage of knowing that perturbation theory applies to working out a very precise answer. (The net effect of both theories applied (and the real world result) is about +38 microseconds per day, for most of the satellites in that orbit, being 12,500 miles up, and having an orbital period of about 11 hours 58 minutes.)

One of these days I'll sit down and work out the formulas myself, but today, if you put a gun to my head, I couldn't do it, even with all those advantages of knowing the right answer going in, in my back pocket. And that's pretty easy stuff compared to other things going on that we are figuring out, cosmologically.

That said, Hawking's material sounds very philosophical, because he's going to great lengths to make it approachable to a non-physicist audience. He'll delve into details where appropriate, but it's kept very lay overall, with lots of great diagrams and visualizations.

[cbayer]

20. I loved math in my younger years, but there was something about physics that I just

couldn't get my head around. It could have been because I had a really bad professor, or it could be just the way my brain works.

I love people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who can actually get me to understand things like the Boson particle and other cosmological mysteries, but there is a great deal of trust that has to be applied.

Perhaps at some time I will give Hawkings another go.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I think it has a lot to do with the individuals utility for the math at hand.

I was awful at math in school, except geometry and a couple concepts like the Pythagorean Theorem and a basic, intuitive grasp of Trig. That, I was head of the class on, because at the time, I was working after school and weekends, and summer framing houses. I had a use for it. I didn't even know what 'it' was, just that I needed to figure out something. Having a use for it, and using it regularly, really changes the game for someone who generally speaking, hates math.

[cbayer]

22. That makes a lot of sense, because I think you are a hands on kind of person.

I am so "left brained" that I am surprised that I can stand straight up. I took years of calculus and loved it, but when it came to applied math, I was lost.

Different strokes.