Big Bang

I. INTRODUCTIONThank you Con, I will now begin.While the title is a bit ambiguous, the first round makes it seem that this debate is on how plausible the Big Bang theory is, not its accuracy. Therefore I will not try to give evidence for why we should beleive it is the correct interpretation, only that the problems that Con or anyone else has with the theory are not unresolvable. I know a bit about physics, but am not an astrophysicist myself, so I cannot give a complete description of the entire theory, but will defend what points I know and understand to the best of my ability.II. THE FIRST LAW AT QUANTUM SCALESCon mentions the First Law of Thermodynamics, and I would like to point out right off the bat that this is only a hard rule in a classical interpretation of physics. We see that in chemistry and quantum physics there is something called the "Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle"[1]. Many people are familiar with this in electron motion, that the position and momentum of an electron cannot simultaneously be known with absolute certainty. This is because of the particle-wave duality making quantum particles move differently than we see large particles moving. There is another expression in this princicple, however, that says that within certain short intervals of time, absolute energy is uncertain. This means that it is possible for energy to be higher than it should be in a given system for tiny periods. Even though we are restricted to short periods however, this doesn't mean useful work cannot be done. The tunnelling effect is one example we can show in labs that not only can energy exceed the limits we expect, but that this can produce concrete results in the physical world[2].As a result of this principle which allows the temporary suspension of the First Law, we can also have transient forces, given through what are called virtual particles[3]. These particles are the basis for the strong nuclear force that holds the cores of atoms together, and they pop in and out of existance where they previously did not exist. This seems to give evidence that energy, and therefore matter, can indeed spontaneously come into existance, without input energy. As I have said, this principle applies at a quantum scale, which is why it does not usually effect things in the current world much. Matter and energy is spread out so far that a boost in energy to an atom produces an effect on a scale so small we cannot see it. In the big bang theory, though, the entire universe was at one point condensed into a tiny volume. Fitting all of the universe into a small space would mean that the First Law can be broken at this scale because of the effects we have verified as existing in current physics. This is how the big bang theory not only solves the conundrum of where original matter and energy came from, but why it necessitates that the universe started in a condensed state.II. THE SOLAR SYSTEMAs I mentioned earlier, I am not an astrophysicist, so the best I can do for some of these objections is to point out the explanations given by more qualified scientists. The Venus problem is an interesting one which seems valid. I would point out though that Venus rotates very slowly. This could be because it always has, but it could also be because Venus' rotation has been slowed. Venus has ridiculously high winds on its surface that are even stronger than they would be on Earth because of the denser atmosphere[4]. These winds come from the heat of the Sun, and could in theory change the spin of the planet over time. This doesn't violate conservation of Momentum because solar radiation is puttng additional torque on the planet, so momentum is not in equilibrium. The theory is that these incredibly strong winds at some point in the past slowed Venus' rotation to a halt, and continued to angularly accelerate it in the opposite direction, giving it its current spin.Earth and Venus have similar sizes and orbit sizes, however, these are not the only factors about a planet. Venus has radically different internal composition, air pressure, atmospheric condidtions, heat, surface elements, and rotation[5]. Atmosphere affects things like how solar radiation or flares affect the surface, regulates the temperature to prevent rapid changes, and burns up incoming asteroids to prevent damage to the surface. Venus does not have the same atmosphere, with it being almost entirely CO2 to our Nitrogen and Oxygen. This is why the planets are nothing alike.Again, I can't tell you much about Uranus because I am not an expert, but if an impact with a large object did cause the tilt to the side, then whether or not it would eject Uranus from the solar system would depend on the angle of impact. If the impact was head on, then most of the incoming momentum from the object would turn to linear momentum for Uranus, so yes it would be ejected. But if the impact was closer to the EDGE of Uranus, then the linear momentum would change to angular momentum, so the planet would change its spin more than its linear velocity, and not be ejected. As a counterproposal, here is an alternative theory[6]. This one states that the gradual change of tilt was caused by a large moon that Uranus used to have. The collision Con theorizes was supposed to eject Uranus from the Solar System, but in this scenario, it is actually the large moon of Uranus which was ejected. The pull of the moon changed Uranus' tilt to what it is now.The angular momentum problem that Con mentions does not affect the length of DAY of a planet, but rather the length of YEAR. Yes the nearer planets should be faster, but we see this is actually true[7]. Mercury has the shortest year, and the length goes up as you get farther away because Mercury is the fastest and has the shortest path. This is in accordance with the Yo-Yo analogy presented by my opponent. Angular momentum does indeed relate to the rotation as well, but this is not related in anyway to the Sun, as the gravitational pull of the Sun is orthagonal to the surface of a planet, and does not produce torque. Things like the mass, density, and formation of the planet is what governs the length of its day.III. NUCLEAR FUSIONFinally, my opponent asks where heavy elements come from. This is explained even outside the big bang theory. It is the process of nuclear fusion, and it is observed how this occurs even today. Clouds of gasses called nebulas are drawn inward by their collective gravity, which due to their huge mass causes pressure. At very high pressure, and therefore heat, this triggers fusion, where the nuclei of smaller elements are drawn close enough for the nuclear force to bind them, pulling them into larger nuclei. This cycle goes differently based on the size of the star and the gasses involved, but in a multistep series this produces a variety of elements in any given star throughout its lifetime. Because fusion releases energy, this fuels additional fusion to create more difficult to produce elements higher up the periodic table. This is where those elements beyond hydrogen came from[8].I believe I've addressed all Con's greivances, so Ill return to him. Good luck!REFERENCES1. http://abyss.uoregon.edu... 2. http://abyss.uoregon.edu...3. http://math.ucr.edu... 4. http://www.space.com... 5. http://www.diffen.com... 6. http://www.technologyreview.com... 7. http://www.universetoday.com... 8. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...;