As you can surmise from the title and my previous topic - the Jehova’s Witnesses struck again, with more claims of scientific evidence. This time it was indeed more of a truly scientific argument than a logical one - mainly, the Big Bang Theory. JHs, of course, claim that BB flies in the face of facts. I find this hard to believe, however, there is one question which I haven’t been able to answer, even by virtues of Google. Basically, if the universe expanded in a regular way, why is there ANYTHING? Shouldn’t universe be a uniform sea of particles (or atoms) in perfect equilibrium between each other? Shouldn’t there be some sort of irregularity, an imbalance that prevented fundamental forces from reaching said equilibrium? If so, then what is the cause of that irregularity? The curvature of universe? Some quantum-related process I have no hope of understanding? Is that related to this matter-antimatter business I keep hearing about, and to the miniscule but existant variances in CMB?
Might I suggest ordering up “A brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking.
It is the best shot of explaining it all I have ever seen.
Other than this suggestion, I cannot help, but I await to see some of the answers.
Jim
Not sure I really see the problem. What are the fact the BB flies in the face of? If we can assume that the matter which came into existance as a result of the BB is similar to that which is created from supernovas, then we’ve got some 94 elements with different electrical properties and atomic weights out there comingling, bonding, and committing other acts of subatomic naughtiness.
The original seeds of nonhomogeneity were caused by quantum fluctuations at the end of the inflationary epoch. Once even small seeds were in place where the density was ever so slightly higher than elsewhere, gravity acted to attract more matter to those spots, magnifying the initial lumpiness into (eventually) galaxies and clusters of galaxies. The variances seen in the CMB are the same thing, somewhere in between the quantum fluctuation level and the galaxy-formation level.
my guess is all matter started as hydrogen. other elements formed later (in tiny amounts, the entire universe is still 99% hydrogen)
The really fun thing is that The Big Bang fits right in with Intelligent Design and Creationists: ‘Let there be light.’
The argument (and I’m pretty sure the JWs here have merely cribbed it from Kent Hovind or some other wicked Trinitarian) is that the BB should have produced a perfectly homogenous universe consisting of identical elementary particles interspersed at precisely uniform spacing, and that in this case, there would be no starting point for matter to ‘clump’ together under its own gravity.
It doesn’t hold water for the reasons Chronos detailed.
BTW the argument is related to the one that asserts all planets should be in the same orbital and rotational plane.
The question of why the universe isn’t completely homogeneous is a significant one in cosmology, but at this point I think it’s pretty well agreed that it’s due to inflation. In layman’s terms: on small scales there were random fluxuations due to quantum mechanics (as Chronos mentions above), and because the universe grew very rapidly in its early stages these random variations were magnified substantially. Plus a little inhomogeneity can lead to more inhomogeneity due to gravity, as Chronos said.
It’s also worth noting that even if Big Bang theory couldn’t explain the inhomogeneity of the universe, this wouldn’t be evidence that the universe was created by God. If that kind of reasoning worked, then the fact that there are any unsolved problems in science would be evidence for God, when in fact it just shows that humans don’t know everything. See also my comment on “God of the gaps” reasoning in the previous thread.
I also feel I should mention that Big Bang theory is arguably more consistent with creationism than what most scientists used to believe – namely that the universe had been around forever. At least with the Big Bang one can say that the universe had a beginning. (I’m not using this as an argument for creationism – just pointing out the irony of creationists objecting to Big Bang theory).