Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Looking for a mechanism behind the Big Bang…

This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time.
Big Bang/NASA

We are told that it is no longer a mystery how the Big Bang ignited:

In a new paper appearing today in Science Magazine, researchers detailed the mechanisms that could cause the explosion, which is key for the models that scientists use to understand the origin of the universe.

“We defined the critical criteria where we can drive a flame to self-generate its own turbulence, spontaneously accelerate, and transition into detonation,” says Kareem Ahmed, an assistant professor in UCF’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and co-author of the study.

“We’re using the turbulence to enhance the mixing of the reactions to the point where it transitions into this violent reaction and essentially leads to supernovas, which is exploding stars in simple terms,” Ahmed says. “We’re taking a simplified flame to where it’s reacting at five times the speed of sound.”

The researcher uncovered the criteria for creating a Big Bang-type explosion while exploring methods for hypersonic jet propulsion.

University of Central Florida, “UCF researchers discover mechanisms for the cause of the Big Bang” at Eurekalert

Interesting. But where did your Big Bang get the flame, guys? No fuel, no flame; no flame, no mechanism. Or have you discovered creation ex nihilo?

See also: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

Fastedious @ 9 Grand Unified doesn't quite work. It's more like Grand Swiss Cheese. No matter how many holes are poked into evolution, Darwinists remain standing firm. No matter how big the holes, they always seem to use circular reasoning to ignore what others see quite clearly. Although you're probably closer to the truth than I am. For the Darwinists to use the portions of their brains to actually think, would more likely result in their own spontaneous combustion. BobRyan
I suppose I should read 20 pages of impenetrable text to find out what I'm missing here, but all of my previous understanding was that the Big Bang was caused by COMPRESSION ALONE and, as with Hydrogen Bombs, once the first few atoms fuse to form Helium, there is then more than enough high temperature and high pressure to continue a chain reaction of helium formation. This is EXACTLY how Hydrogen gas clouds become STARS... And, as with contemporary novas, great balls of super-heated (but not "burning") Hydrogen and Helium will happily blow themselves to smithereens, a Little Bang?, scattering their guts across Space. But without Oxygen, etc., H2 can't "burn" in any normal chemical sense. So what purpose could a "flame" serve in the presence of a thermonuclear reaction? vmahuna
Bob @7: You've got it backwards, Bob. Rather, all the Darwinists got together and came up with the Grand Unified Just-So Story that was just so right and true (in their minds) that this ultimate truth just had to propagate back in time to ignite the evolution of the Universe. Fasteddious
Oh, dear... Perhaps UCF is trying to publish as much nonsense as possible in order to pull their ranking up? Even within their own state they are ranked far below 3 universities: 2020 US News public university ranking UF 7 FSU 18 USF 44 UCF 79 At least this publication called somebody’s attention to the existence of UCF. That’s PR. Regarding Florida universities, I’d rather read a paper UD News cited a few years ago from an Italian computer scientist at UF who wrote something about the central dogma of biology. Does anybody have the link to that OP? jawa
It isn't that difficult to understand how it ignited. All the Darwinsits suddenly suddenly started to ask themselves real questions about their beliefs. The tiny explosions inside the unused parts of their brain sent a the ignition across space time, which is what caused the initial ignition. BobRyan
Spontaneous. Combustion. ET
"But where did your Big Bang get the flame, guys?" Cosmic Zippo? OldArmy94
I believe I saw something similar to this many years ago around 2013 or 2014, very similar principal. Now if anybody read the bottom caption at the end of the article does say that your eureka alert is not responsible for any information or miss information it reports Now that might be telling you something no different than when Wikipedia Gives you a very similar disclaimer about the information within its archives Anyways I do not see how they draw the parallels between a small burst inside of an air turbine and the big bang and I don’t mean that in a literal sense I really don’t see how a small explosion based off of a combustion reaction and turbulence can be likened under any circumstance to the Big Bang. AaronS1978
Anyone who thinks the "Big Bang" can be likened to an explosion does not know what they are talking about. The creation of the universe was certainly not anything like we would normally envision an ordinary explosion to be like:
WHY THE BIG BANG IS NOT AN EXPLOSION - By Sten Odenwald - May 14, 1997 Excerpt: the event that created the universe and everything in it was a very different kind of phenomenon than most people -- or, at least, most nonphysicists -- imagine. Even the name "Big Bang" originally was a putdown cooked up by a scientist who didn't like the concept when it was first put forth. He favored the idea that the universe had always existed in a much more dignified and fundamentally unchanging, steady state. But the name stuck, and with it has come the completely wrong impression that the event was like an explosion. That image leads many of us to imagine that the universe is expanding because the objects in it are being flung apart like fragments of a detonated bomb. That isn't true.,,, So, how should we think about the Big Bang? Our "fireworks" image of the phenomenon depends on five basic requirements: 1) A preexisting sky or space into which the fragments from the explosion are injected; 2) A preexisting time we can use to mark when the explosion happened; 3) Individual projectiles moving through space from a common center; 4) A definite moment when the explosion occurred; and 5) Something that started the Big Bang. All of these requirements in our visualization of the Big Bang are false or unnecessary, according to GR. Preexisting Space? There was no preexisting space. The mathematics of GR state unambiguously that three-dimensional space was created at the Big Bang itself, at "Time Zero," along with everything else. At that beginning, there were no separations between particles anywhere. This is another way of saying there was no three-dimensional space,,, space is not a passive stage across which objects dance but a full-fledged member of the cast. GR treats galaxies and "space-time" together, giving a very different picture of what happens than if they were treated separately, as most of us tend to do.,,, Perhaps the strangest truth to emerge from general relativity is the expansion of space. Like spots glued to the surface of a swelling balloon at eternally fixed latitude and longitude points, the galaxies remain where they are while space dilates between them as time passes.,,, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1997/05/14/why-the-big-bang-is-not-an-explosion/7164578f-5b06-407b-b69a-e97377145ac5/ "The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this 'explosion' reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude." Prof. Henry F. Schaefer - closing statement of the following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=901f7oC_Pik&feature=player_detailpage#t=360s
As Dr. Bruce Gordon states in the following video, "An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially.,,,"
“An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you've got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ” Dr Bruce Gordon - Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 - video – 1:50 minute mark - video https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110
see SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model's 'Electro-Magnetic Repulsion' hypothesis for the Cosmic Inflation Expansion mechanism of how we got from a hyper-sense start to a mature density and sized universe relatively very early in the history of the physical universe. In Volume II of the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment. Pearlman
A mere detail, News.. a mere taradiddle. Look at the big picture...'First you get a flame....' Actually, very like those jokes, in which the atheist says, 'First you get bla, bla...' Axel

Leave a Reply