What actually caused the sudden explosion of light and matter during the 'Big Bang.'?

The honest answer is nobody knows yet, however we do know it wasn't an explosion of light and matter; it wasn't an explosion at all, as we normally understand them. The term Big Bang was coined by Sir Fred Hoyle as a disparaging expression of his contempt for the theory that the Universe expanded so explosively, ie rapidly, at its birth.

However, my take on it as a nominally informed layman is this. The basic idea is that everything we see as the Universe, not just the matter (including Dark Matter) but all of Space itself, was compressed into one virtually infinitesimal point, a singularity*. What reason do we have to suppose that such a thing might be stable? We know that atomic structures can and do break down spontaneously - look at Hiroshima.

If you really want to learn about this stuff, and it is a truly fascinating story involving some pretty remarkable people, one of the best books I can recommend is by Simon Singh ("An epic tale, brilliantly told" according to the Daily Telegraph).

---

* Unless Stephen Hawking is right and there was no singularity...

(July 5, 2012 at 8:54 pm)IUsedToBelieve Wrote: What actually caused the sudden explosion of light and matter during the 'Big Bang.'?

Right now, random quantum flucturation seems as good an explanation as any, and far better than god because unlike god and his supposed creation, we can actually observe quantum fluctuations and prove it is real, and it is open for us to get to the very bottom of exactly what makes it tick, unlike the bogeyman god.

Quote:The honest answer is nobody knows yet

Which is still a better answer than "jesus."

(July 5, 2012 at 8:54 pm)IUsedToBelieve Wrote: What actually caused the sudden explosion of light and matter during the 'Big Bang.'?

Stars did not form for about 100 million years after the Big Bang, so there was no 'sudden' explosion of light. I am assuming, of course, that what you mean by light is the human visible range of the electro-magnectic spectrum.

Actually, the first 300,000 years was a sea of light, in the form of trapped photons. It wasn't until recombination occurred, when things had cooled enough for hydrogen and helium nuclei to capture electrons, that the photons were free to travel unhindered and the Universe became transparent. It is that initial glow, redshifted into the microwave range, that we now see as the Cosmic Microwave Background.

(July 5, 2012 at 11:31 pm)cato123 Wrote:

(July 5, 2012 at 8:54 pm)IUsedToBelieve Wrote: What actually caused the sudden explosion of light and matter during the 'Big Bang.'?

Stars did not form for about 100 million years after the Big Bang, so there was no 'sudden' explosion of light. I am assuming, of course, that what you mean by light is the human visible range of the electro-magnectic spectrum.

At time of recombination, the temperature of the universe was 4000 degrees K, this was decidedly within the visible range.

(July 5, 2012 at 8:54 pm)IUsedToBelieve Wrote: What actually caused the sudden explosion of light and matter during the 'Big Bang.'?

Well, it's a big subject and I'm sure Lawrence Krauss can go into it better than I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

I love and hate discussions like this. I love them when science is talking about science. I hate them though when a theist tries to insert a who with the stupid "painting has a painter" argument.

It is true we do not know at this point. But even Hawkins has said that a god is not required. I agree.

If one can accept that a hurricane is not caused by an ocean god, but the conditions of the atmosphere why cant the universe be the product of conditions and not a who?

The other thing theists miss is that nature is not all random or all predictable. A hurricane starts out because of multiple smaller factors. The conditions are predictable, but the exact number of clouds, shape, exact number of raindrops and the individual paths of each raindrop are the random part.

Science could go either way as far as this universe being the product of the death of a prior one, or it could be that this all came from nothing, we simply do not know. But whatever happened does not require a thinking entity to cause it.

And the theist would be, even if we said a god was required, which I flat out reject, would still be stuck with "which one"? And how convenient it always leads to the one they claim.

I like to ask the claimants of the god caused universe, would they buy this argument from someone with a different god claim?