What about M theory?

String theory is more of a mathmatical exercise than an actual theory at this point. It doesn't make any predictions about things happening now, much less the begining of the universe. It needs to 'cook' a little longer to be of any great use. I think one day it might actually be of some parctical use.

"show you how it all started" - that statement make it sound like that big bang is a fact. Why is it easier for people to believe in the religion of big bang and evolution but not to believe that a creator created it. Do you really prefer to be an "accident" rather than a created being with a purpose and know that you are loved and have an eternal future with Him?

Vadim....how do you know that the Big Bang wasn't the start of His work? I'm pretty sure the Bible says that he created the stars and the heavens....He had to start somewhere right? Or do you prefer to no see the possibilities that the two don't exclude one another?

What if the study of the Big Bang bring a closer understanding of the work of God, only to find out you chose to ignore it? Open you mind just a little and see the possibilities.

Oh! for cry'n out loud! Vadim the big bang is at least tentatively support by fact. Religion is supported by faith. Please don't confuse the two

@Vadim, Of course they don't actually know, nor can they actually ever know "how it all started", but they can use math and some tangible evidence to theorize about the nature of the universe. The reason that this theory is more believable than the mythology of modern religion is the fact that the earth and humans existed on this planet long before the concept of God was even considered.

Science does not explain everything, but it has a lot more evidence than religion.

RB64 is right. Science never aims to exclude religion. And so religion should pay an equal respect to science. There is no such thing as "the religion of the big bang". It is a theory. More importantly, it has never ever been motivated by a desire to replace God. No science ever does. History proves it - MIT does not burn people at the stake for believing in Heaven. The CERN lab is not bent on disproving Jesus.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

The full quote is even better. Vadim, you should really take it to heart.
"A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

This one from Pope John Paul II is also a good one.
Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish…We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be.

Wow..I really like PJPII's quote.
Kinda nice to hear that coming from what was once a very close-minded organization.

Now if everyone embraced this...we might be in a better world.

So tired of this religious crap hiding beneath a layer of science. I don't care how fancy an animation the religious nuts make, it's still not science.

We live in a vast expanse of time that has no beginning or end. This concept might be too hard to fathom for some, but to suggest that nothing existed is even more unfathomable.

It seems logical to me that there was no beginning and that there will be no end; that the only reason we seek a beginning because we ourselves as humans have a beginning and end. In our minds, everything else must have a beginning and end, otherwise it is harder to imagine, understand, and accept.

I tend to believe that existence is infinite. It is infinite in scale, meaning there is no limit to size; an infinite universe of the subatomic and galactic.

While the "universe" as we think we know it may have had a point where it expanded to a size large enough for us to form, I highly doubt it was created by anything.

Then again, this probably comes down to a dispute of terminology. Many people probably confuse the notions of the universe and existence/non-existence.

Shoot, is there even a term that is in general use that encompasses everything and not just our Universe?

Golly, any time I want to know the facts about the universe, I'll just read the Bible! Makes a lot of sense...

"of course" I do hope you read the bible in the original text because otherwise your "facts" may be a bit muddled. For instance, "young woman" and "virgin" are the same in aramaic - "yeshua". So Mary was a "young woman" and not necessarily a virgin. Plus a lot of books were left out after Constantine I canonized his version of the holy book. So maybe you ought to say "whenever you need solace you read the Bible" because I am sure if you were up for trial and you were accused using equivalent "facts" you'd demand a retrial.
Bottom line, ask your preacher or priest or spiritual guide - faith is not about facts it is about believing.
And rest assured no scientist grabs the elemental chart for solace, so your bible is sole owner of metaphysical calm.

just one question, if time never existed before the big bang, then how did the big bang ever happen?
like, if time never progressed then the big bang, or anything else for that matter, could never have happened.
im not trying to disprove the theory or anything, just was curious.
has anyone else thought of this before?

FAKE!!!!

This is a completew photoshop job. You can tell its a fake because the shadow's are all wrong.

This is exactly like that scene in the movie Never BAck Down where Max was told by the police to put his hands in the circles and asked if he was human. He replied "Negative, I'm a meat popsicle" At which point the cops went aft5er his neighbor.

The funny thing is, these creatures still can't prove anything, all they have is dirt and a vivid imagination.

OMG. She is hot. I'd like to practice a little evolution on her. .... OHhhh I love smart women. Even a nice boob shot at 1:08.

You people think I'm kidding.

who ever seen history channel's "the universe" knows all this and tons more and even easier explained

way too cool

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=mini_home&mini_id=54036

also the more we study science the more we find out lots of stuff on the bible to be true (like everything moses went thru)

oh and daguz, you lil perv XD

@Daguz

Best comment ever.

@manny

Anything on the History Channel is overly sensationalized and not very close to reality. Much like Big Bang Theory!

Just toasted an English muffin and it now looks like St. Francis.

@Daisy that was the 5th Element, not never back down.

Being "overly" anything is a bad thing... including religious.

"nothing" is still something

I reckon they're looking the wrong way - outwards instead of inwards.

I reckon other galaxies and beings lie inside the smallest atoms in the tiniest specs of dust on earth on an infinitely small scale that we cannot detect :)

And these impossibly small beings can not find us because they would have to fly their equivalent of million s of light years to get to the edge of their dust particle universe and break into ours :)

What all SSCs (superstitious social constructs = religions) have in common is to deny that death is the end, therefore SSCs exist because people were (some still are?) unable to accept that death is the absolute end of the individual.

In the near future when the disease known as death is finally eradicated , all SSCs (religions) will finally disappear

Holy crap. I just toasted another English muffin and it ALSO looks like St. Francis. And to think -as Paul believes- there are billions of universes in every crumb I worry about eating it because then I may destroy all those universes and they will never have a chance to experience -as fluorospacedon talks about- an SSC-free world where death never happens.

@ Vadim: Yes, I really do prefer to believe I am the product of pure chance rather than the creation of a higher being. The former requires unthinkable numbers of consequences, impercievably precise physical constants and time and space stretching distances beyond our own imaginations. Religion removes the need for all this beauty and replaces it with faith.

@MatthiasF and Thrishnall: You seem to be confusing science and philosophy/religion. Belief does not enter into the scientific discussion of the Big Bang Theory. Before the time of Hubble (the scientist, not the telescope) the idea that the universe as we know it was neverending was considered a viable scientific hypothesis. However, the data collected by astronomers did not support such an idea. Nobody set out to prove a begining and end. In truth, the main assumption was that it DIDN'T have an end. But again, the DATA did not support that idea. Thus, the Big Bang Theory was devised as a way to explain the DATA. Now, if people who continue to talk about what they believe without looking at the data, that's fine, but you are then talking about philosphy/religion, not science.

As one who believes that "design requires a designer", (i.e. creation) [but not a veiled political tool known as Creationism, having come from human institutional religious entities with political aspirations], it's much less magical to have arisen by design rather than an absurdly and statistically impossible series of random acts that had to occur in a specific sequence...

@fluorospacedon

Those who lack faith are unable to comprehend the mathamatics of infinity.

@fluorospacedon, although your comment seems to ring profound, you couldn't be more wrong. Faith may give us a way to embrace infinity in an emotional way or even in a creative way, but in no way does it help us comprehend "the mathematics of infinity". For that... you need math.

I take it you were responding to me. From your comment I see you do not understand the math. If you did you would realize that if the universe is truely infinite, then that nothing is impossible.

Hammett:

I take it you were responding to me. From your comment I see you do not understand the math. For if you did you would realize that if the universe is truely infinite, then nothing is impossible.

Mycroft, that's not what you originally said. You said understanding "the mathematics of infinity" was impossible "if you lack faith" and that is completely wrong. You do not need faith to understand "the mathematics" of infinity. I know many atheists who totally comprehend "the mathematics of infinity" and, furthermore, your reply to my comment says that if I understood math I would know that "nothing is impossible" which only serves as additional proof that it is you who does not understand math. "nothing is impossible" is not a mathematical conclusion nor is it even something math even aims to prove. You're mixing things up. Faith and math are very different. "nothing is impossible" and the concept of infinity - as a strictly mathematical construct [and not a philosophical one] - have nothing to do with each other. Your logic is akin to saying if I don't know what an apple is, then I will never be able to mathematically understand that one apple plus one apple equals two delicious healthy treats. I may not know what an apple tastes like but MATHEMATICALLY I know all I need to know. Math is not philosophical nor is it metaphysical. Nor metaphorical. The implications of the square root of negative one is not a subject for discourse. Even great men like Pythagoras kept his philosophical thoughts and his mathematical ones separate. So should you.

dashiell is absolutely right.
I think what Mycroft is trying to say is -
THOSE WHO LACK FAITH ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE MAGIC / BEAUTY / MAGNIFICANCE / PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS / DIVINITY OF INFINITY.
They are unable to grasp the true implication of that which is infinite.
As for the mathematics of infinity, even my third grade students get that.

If I may comment myself what I meant, It goes like this: What are the odds of somthing existing in an infinite universe? Whenever you throw infinity in any mathamatical model, since it is not an absolute, you end up with a possibility of anything existing, no matter how remote. Is there an exact copy of me typing away somewhere in this universe? Doing the math, I find it is a possibility. Oh sure, you can punch in the numbers just fine, but are you able to truely grasp the implications? When you do you find you have faith.

Let's put it another way.

Say you are an atheist, you'd say, "There is no possibility of God (or whomever's) existence." We can represent this, mathamatically, by the value Zero. Next, you have someone with faith (or whatever you want to call it) who says, "But the universe is infinite, how can you know?" We can repesednt this by infinity. Now, what is the product of Zero and Infinity?

(Here is a hint: if you have but one answer, it is wrong.)

@ dashiell hammett and every one else
what you define as faith is not correct. faith is not just a religious propoganda word used by people you do not know the answers to the question and do not want to look for them, faith is a completly social concept that covers more than religion, i might have faith that my friend will always be a good friend, but that does not mean i construct a religious belief structure around him and worship totems and preform magical rites and recite incantations in his honor.
also to be religious does not mean you believe things on faith alone, albert einstein had a belief structure not unlike most christians but he used mathematecs to try and define it, to understand how the universe was created, he belived that the universe and ALL things were "God"
personally i do not belive in the hokus pokus that christianity spews forth nor do i claim to be an athiest, i do not have the answers myself, that does not mean i exclude those ideologies, it just means i can see through all if the past corrupion, political and social intriuge, and and closed mindedness that the advocates of Judeo-christian heritage try to hide. the last two thousand years have made christianity into what it is today, and not any of the preceeding time, whether you belive the earth formed in seven days of billions of years.
also if there is ever evidence that SOME groups of christians are just as ideoligically closed minded as say the nazis, (who burned books because they did not like the opinins expressed in them) i saw three christian groups from my home town hold book burning parties after the release of the first harry potter book. sometimes the proponents of faith can overwhelm those who choose to follow it blindly, and therfore exclude many new wild ideas.

dedicated to the memory of coppernicus, keppler, galileo, and many, many more who believed that science was more important to humanity than faith!

Wow someone sure is full of himself (Mycroft)

Or is it just that you're full of "it"? Either way I think the description fits perfectly.

I always find it funny when religious folks start trying to get all philosophical-like and prove their point, which defies the very point of having FAITH:

"those who believe because they have not seen", right?

So if you have FAITH then you're saying you can't, nor should you want to, prove your point. But by arguing you try to validate your FAITH, which flies in the face of just what FAITH is.

LOL

Not to be a poor sport, but, I honestly I don't see anything here revolutionary. It's definitely a nice animation but still doesn't explain the concept of a "donut" universe.

Furthermore, some interesting points were brought up in regards to time being created when if time was created, how did it first happen since there was no process for progress?

And lastly, do a google search on the new term coined "Dark Flow" or just go here:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/08/dark-flow-discovered-at-edge-of-the-universe-hundreds-of-millions-of-stars-racing-toward-an-cosmic-h.html#more

What they are finding at the edge of the universe just about blows the doors off the concept of the Big Bang, at least in it's current form. That's what is beautiful about Science. What we know is always in a constant state of flux, but always improving for the better.

Oh, and for those religious zealots having an issue with the concept of the Big Bang. Get over it. You should know that Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, was one of the first people that put the theory foward.

Alotta Fehjeyenah - FINALLY a sane person comments. Thank you. I was starting to lose faith - HA.

Mycroft, atheism is not zero and God is not infinity. Zero is zero. And God is God. You cannot use math to prove religion. In the same way that that idiot Shermer [if you read Scientific American he has a column in it] can't use math to disprove miracles.
Grendler, I realize I am nuts but you've freaking crazy. Who dropped you on your head. Dashiell was NOT talking about faith in and of itself. He was talking about it in relation to math. He was saying how you cannot mix faith into strick mathematics. Even Einstein spoke of this. How science was non-religious. Read more before you try to quote him.
And all your heroes - they did not think science was more important than faith - they had a passion for science and they believed the truth was more important than the doctrines of the church - but faith was never their rival.
Many were VERY religious.

I guess I am just not very good an expressing my point, or just presented it very badly initially. I am certainly not attempting to say I have a greater understanding of the universe than others here. In fact I agree with the comments above that you cannot use math to prove god's (or whatever) existence, nor can you disporve god's existence through math,or science, although that is apparantly what most atheist attempt to do. What I do believe an understanding of infinity does give you, if you are able to truely comprehend it, is the that anything is possible. For me that means the possibilty of a higher power, which I have called here, faith.

@friedrich glauser and everyone else who might care
"How science is non religious"? einstein would say that they are (at least to him) the same side of the same coin, my point was that many religious scientists did not follow their faith blindly, they did not belive out of hand what some one says sunday morning while reading an old book, they tried to find and create their own version by melding the two together. the very thought that the two were different would be inconceivable. Einstein used his faith as a starting point and an end point to not disprove or prove the exsistance of god, he wanted to read the mind of god, to find out how he created the universe. he had faith that there was a god, but a god that used the tools of phisiscs, chemistry and mathematics to create the universe, einstein called it the "the garden" and if you have read anything on einstien then you surely will know this. don't concentrate on his published scinetific papers you can read his biograhpies and many letters he had written to his contemporaries discussing this very subject.
maybe the grand unification theory or unicorn of modern science will finally put this discussion to rest, but until it has been proved or disproved there will be no end to the debate.
During the times of galileo and the others, everyones faith was directed toward the church, there was little else to be had, and what there was was very dangerous to belive in, for the non-jews in europe to have faith was to suscribe to the doctrine of the catholic church, or else risk the inquisition,( which went far beyond the spanish) or exile, or excomunication(the lable of a heritic was a very serious status in europe, i could get you killed in most places, make finding a place to settle down nearly impossible) . few broke away like luther, but most were trapped in a belief system that ment faith in "god" was faith in the catholic church.
You can call my crazy all you want it still does not change history no matter how much you want it to. let me know if all your wisdom creates a time machine that actually works because there is some history that people would like to change. I myself cannot seem to get mine to work without traveling to an alternate earth, seems like a twisted sliders/back to the future combo. maybe it is the bathtub hull design? i don't know you tell me.
Also, don't confuse spirituality and religiousness. the former is not constrained by a organized structure, some may fein religousness in an effort to stay safe from persecution.
what a nice discorse, i really like the pettyness in a couple of of comments. it mirrors the discussion in real life.

@mycroft, don't worry too much about how good or bad you are at expressing your point, nothing you wrote comes as close to utter babble as grendler's two postings. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, grendler is a very dangerous person.

@John McIntosh
damn, i did not know i was the only person to coment on this that did NOT have a PhD in theology and cosmology, it is good to see all of you who make breakthoughs in your fields of study, where do you all work, CERN, SETI, FERMI labs or the Vatican, it is nice to see all of the great thinkers of our time coment on this site. wow you sure humbled me with all of your DEEP insight. i'm sure all of your graduate students take top honors. by the way, where did you get your Phd's. just so i know where to go to get an education, because my bachelors degrees in history, geology, anthropology, physics, english lit. and biblical archaeology seem to have been given to me with instead of earned, they damn sure don't make me the expert you are. but at least i have broadend my horizons and don't take anything blindly

@grendler, actually I work at Max Planck Institute. With quantum optics. Taught at Brown and Stanford. And got my PHD at MIT. Undergrad from Yale. So if you want suggestions where to get an education, I have a lot of ideas and will gladly help.

If everything comes from nothing, then everything we see, hear, think, say or do is made of....nothing...

Simple logic. What other possible conclusion is there?

"all of the matter and energy of the universe is born..."

I think that is interesting... Who is the father? I know... do you?

All the complexities of the universe are the result of intelligent design.

Dont call me a freak or a nut... It takes more faith to believe that it was by meer chance that the "bang" happened with the exact amount of energy to distribute the exact amount of matter with the exact amount of gravitational pull to create an environment that was exactly suited as a catalyst for life...

It is His creation.

Amen.

To believe in a god to believe in aliens . If humans exist long enough to develop our science to the fullest , we , using machines and perhaps the power collected from a Dysons sphere , we will become " gods " . Ergo , we could be nothing more than some beings high school science project . Is that worth spending your life worshiping ?

What level of being does gender become incomprehensible or unecessary or impossible? What if in the future, science merged with religion.

einstein was a pantheistic. He was annoyed by people who said he believed in a personal god or believed in any sort of deity. If anything (like most assumed religious scientists in history) he believed in god in a poetic sense (atheist of a poetic disposition).

Beautiful visuals in there. A very nice piece overall. It reminds me of my own struggle to visualize the Big Bang for a full-dome production a few years ago. Not an easy task. Seeing this nice approach makes me want to have another go at it.