An issue was raised in an earlier post about The Big Bang and The String Theories. I think that a few things need clarifying:
The Big Bang Theory should be percieved as the begining of all existence, according to science. It explains how everything came into being from absolute nothingness, in a cataclysmic explosion, 12-18 billion years ago. Scientifically, creating something out of nothing is technically possible, if you see nothingness as but a combination of matter and antimatter. And just as you can get 2 out of zero by subtracting negative 2 from zero, you can get matter from nothingness by separating it from antimatter. The process that generated this occurence is much too complex to detail here. Suffice it to say that due to it's delicate nature, approximately 3 billion units of matter and antimatter were annihilated for every unit of matter that came into being. The process also produced a cosmic asymetry that has only one direction. This asymetry is now known as Time. Time, as we all know, is mono-directional, propagading only towards the future.
Now String Theories are a different kettle of fish altogether. They are among a larger group of theories that are hoped to one day help build a Grand Unifying Theory (GUT). The Grand Unifying Theory shall be able to unify all the 4 major forces of the universe: the Strong Force, The Weak force, Electromagnetism, and Gravitational force. String Theories are, to a great extent, a product of observations at the sub-atomic levels. At these levels, also known as Quantum levels, the Space-Time Continuum changes property, and time itself behaves like a fourth spatial dimension. Due to these kind of phenomena, scientists have hypothesised the existence of upto 8 extra dimensions at the quantum levels.
In short hence, the relationship between String Theories and The Big Bang Theory is not chronological: one didn't precede the other, or precipitate the occurence of the other. Both theories are still in active application now, for their basic tenements do not conflict. Far from it, they seem to complement each other.
4 comments:
I just read what I wrote from the determinism and i did state that one theory arose from another. What I meant to say was that I read in some science journal that the theories came after a series of events from numerous scientists and through collaborations in history. My point was to say that whatever theories arise from science it always changes so nothing is concrete or defined. Because discoveries are always made and refined and rejected and brought into light all over again with time and change in our development.
How'd you fix your time? i.e. I changed my GMT settings on my gmail account and still my blooger has the western time showing.
Point taken: theories do evolve over time - sometimes by being completely overthrown. That's why science is based on research: it is a foley into the unknown.
However, for the last 300 hundred years, the evolution theory has basically only got more refined - more detailed - as more evidence was got through the evolving technology.
See, the basic thrust of evolution is this: that the present state of life is but a culmination of aeons of build up. Nothing just spontaneously sprung up from nowhere, under the command of a Sovereign being, as creationist believe.
Doing good my pal.I think this is just the right place to air you views.
Post a Comment