big bang?

[daltonnk]

If the bing bang theory was real could someone tell me how we ended up on this place witch just happens to be perfect for us and if facts are made by knowing something is there any documantary on the actual "bang"? answer me that people

[MarkRae]

Er, right...

The theory is real, but that's all it is - a theory.

We didn't end up on this planet which just happens to be perfect for us - it was the properties and history of this planet which caused us to evolve into what we are. Any other planet with entirely different properties and history may have caused totally different life forms to have evolved - we have no way of knowing at the moment...

[beso]

We ended up in the place that is perfect for us because if we ended up anywhere else we wouldn't be "us".

Everything in the observable universe is moving apart. Extrapolating that movement backwards leads to everything being in the same place about 13.75 billion years ago.

Because light travels at a limited speed, looking far into the distance we actually see the Universe as it was a long time ago. These observations are consistent with what would have happened if the Universe had been produced by the Big Bang.

[factor-fiction]

Interesting question. I agree with the other answers. There will have been many billions (maybe an infinite number) of 'places' created by the big bang. Earth just happened to have the right conditions for evolution to occur in the way it did. There could indeed be life forms on other planets but we may never find out. I suppose it's possible (maybe quite likely) that there is another planet somewhere which has very similar properties to ours, and evolution may have led to something similar to our species.

[MarkRae]

http://www.spacedaily.../early-earth-01e.html

[boxtops]

We didn't end up here (as others have said), we didn'd "land" here, we grew and evolved to suit the environment of the Earth.

[R1Geezer]

Look up the "weak anthropic principle" - Essentially, yes , we are here because it is perfect for us.

[jake-the-peg]

Sorry guys these are all lousy answers.

Yes the antropic priciple explains why we happen to be on a planet just perfect for us - there are after all thousands of planets.

But how come we happen to live in a Universe where the gravitational force is just the right strength, where the nuclear forces happen to work so that the fusion of hydrogen atoms releases energy rather than consumes it.

How come we live in a universe where electrons can form a stable bonding with protons and where the strong nuclear force is just right to allow neutrons to glue protons together.

We would not exist if any of these or many other factors were different and you can't invoke the anthropic principle to explain this because there is only one Universe.

Or is there - we now come up with the Multi-verse theory where the laws are different in each - suddenly the anthropic principle is good again.

Anybody else find this a little disconcerting?

There is no actual evidence for these other Universes other than the need for them to exist to answer the above problem.

This is not good science.

In the rush to this solution I think we may reject other alternatives.

I know the strong antropic principle is much despised and is held to be "unscientific" but is it seriouly less scientific than a multiverse for which there is no evidence?

[R1Geezer]

yes jake but if those properties you envisage were the case then there'd be a different "we" asking the same questions. Whatever laws of physics we live under seem normal to us.

[ll_billym]

The reason we are in a place that is perfect for us is that if the place wasn't perfect for us then we wouldn't be here. For instance, the biological processes that began life on Earth did not start on the Sun because they would have got all burned up before it got started.

This has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory because this theory tries to explain the process that lead to the configuration of the universe today, why there are planets like ours that have properties that can sustain life, and why there are suns and stars for instance. It may not be correct but currently it is the explanation that most comprehensively fits the facts we have observed.

[squarebear]

"how we ended up on this place witch just happens to be perfect for us"

Because if it wasn't suitable for us, we wouldn't know anything about it. Pure coincidence.

[beso]

jake //There is no actual evidence for these other Universes other than the need for them to exist to answer the above problem. //

Not quite. Observations of the Universe have revealed it is anisotropic. In the far distance there are places where matter is moving towards particular regions.

It has been suggested that this is possibly due to the presence of other universes beyond our own. Work is continuing on confirming if these asymmetries are real or observational errors.

Other theroies suggest the Big Bang was initiated by a collision between two "branes". The nature of this interaction define the physic of the resulting universe and there may be many.

I am not uncomfortable with this concept at all. The fact that our Universe does have, for no particular reason, special properties that make matter possible, strongly suggests that there are vast numbers of universes.

The numbers suggested are in the order of 10^500 different possible universes. Considering that even the number of atoms in our own Universe is tiny in comparison it seems unsurprising that something as remarkable as our own existence was inevitable.

[Theland1]

If the wildly speculative theories of multiverses and branes are kosher to the scientist, why is God rejected as a First Cause?
Using the democratic principle, more people believe in a Creator God than do those who believe in, "it just 'appened guv."

[Theland1]

Well more people giving the subject consideration seem to think that Daz washes whiter and God was the First Cause.
Should we dismiss the opinions of millions then?

[Theland1]

You're up early.

[society]

There is no part of the Big Bang theory that is factual aside from the constant separation of the solar systems in the universe. Life exists on this planet, in this solar system, and there's a good chance it exists elsewhere in this enormous universe.

It is very difficult to believe in the creation of everything from nothing!

[beso]

The big problem with the God hypothesis is that is asks us to accept that everything originated at the most complex structure (that surely any god must be) which created the simple single event that led to the now well understood sequence of energy, matter and life itself.

God offers no explanation for its own origin and therefore poses more questions than it answers. It is an entirely pointless and artificial construct postulated without a shred of evidence.

Those who suggest that the Big Bang came from nothing do so with the intent of discrediting it. Serious cosmologists are working hard to discover what produced it.