Quote:
Originally Posted by llatpog
With all the inperfections, why does the big bang need to have all the matter in the universe in it? Wouldn't that indicate it being perfect.
|
The idea of the big bang came from 'playing backwards' the expansion observed in the universe.
If you play it right back to the start, then
everything that is (or at least is observed to be), is in the same place. Singularity. Then predictions were made, which were susbsequently observed, making the Big Bang a powerful theory indeed.
If there's something
more, where did it come from? (Which isn't to say it didn't or can't.)
Having said that, I don't
really buy the singularity either. And in fact the big bang says nothing prior to t=10^-43 seconds. For me, the problem with the singularity (t=0) is that it invokes infinity.
It seems wherever man's theories do that, nature conspires to prevent observation of the fact, for example the event horizon of black holes, or the particle horizon of our universe (which by some accounts might be infinite).
It suggests a fundamental horizon to our knowledge also?
Was the big bang perfect? I've read how some scientists consider the big bang was indeed highly ordered. More highly ordered than anything that has been observed since, and the laws of entropy and thermodynamics have granted time its arrow ever since... I've yet to grasp all of it though.