Thread: Illogic of Inflation Theory

I don`t understand how is it that just after the Big Bang universe spread faster than speed of light, than at one moment it decreased its speed, only to over the course of time increase again?
Isn`t that illogical?

Alan Guth applied the quantum term of “negative pressure” to the Big Bang. A patch of this smaller than an atom can come out of nowhere and then inflate to about 25 orders of magnitude (100 million times) in tiny slices of a second (one second divided by a 1 with thirty seven zeroes behind it.). This is a real aspect of quantum physics, not hand waiving. Normally, particle pairs are created that promptly annihilate each other, but in this case, the quantum state got “hung”. You can supercool water and it remains liquid. When it finally does freeze, the entire volume freezes at once, releasing a lot of energy. The initial universe was created by energy equal to what you would get from a kilogram of matter (300 megajoules). As it expanded it cooled and the Superforce separated into the forces we know today (Strong, Weak and Electromagnetism). This released the energy that makes up the 100 billion galaxies we have today and continued the expansion. After several billion years, the universe then slowed until dark energy’s effect took over. Gravity bends space-time and DE stretches space-time. This last stage of expansion may continue forever.

Thank you!

You're welcome!

Originally Posted by Arch2008

Alan Guth applied the quantum term of “negative pressure” to the Big Bang. A patch of this smaller than an atom can come out of nowhere and then inflate to about 25 orders of magnitude (100 million times) in tiny slices of a second (one second divided by a 1 with thirty seven zeroes behind it.). This is a real aspect of quantum physics, not hand waiving. Normally, particle pairs are created that promptly annihilate each other, but in this case, the quantum state got “hung”. You can supercool water and it remains liquid. When it finally does freeze, the entire volume freezes at once, releasing a lot of energy. The initial universe was created by energy equal to what you would get from a kilogram of matter (300 megajoules). As it expanded it cooled and the Superforce separated into the forces we know today (Strong, Weak and Electromagnetism). This released the energy that makes up the 100 billion galaxies we have today and continued the expansion. After several billion years, the universe then slowed until dark energy’s effect took over. Gravity bends space-time and DE stretches space-time. This last stage of expansion may continue forever.

What a load full of bull , realy man is that the way it happend?Do you have pictures to show us?

Its a very good theory and its very logical.

SG, here is a picture of the inflating universe, but you will have to use your own crayons.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060323.html

Arch2008. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Solomon.

Negative pressure? Vacuum?

A God moment when something appeared from nothing. Was it branes from Dimension Z that caused this?

Seems like hand waiving to me. Or has anyone achieved inflation in a laboratory?

1x10^-37 second is waaay beyond anything we are capable of so we are in mathsworld here.

Verne's "Off on a comet" featured supercooled water freezing, a century ago.

The universe was created by energy from 1 kg of matter. This is a science forum and not a fairy forum, isn't it? some people will eat garbage if told it is best steak.

Dark energy? Another fairy tale.

The universe at an alleged 158 billion light years is supposed to be finely balanced. When solid matter was created at an alleged 380,000 years after the BB, the reason the universe did not collapse into a black hole is.....?

When someone asks me what we celebrate on 4 July here in the U.S. I point out that it is the signing of the Declaration of Independence marking the birth of my nation. Some could always question whether I am just making this up. How could this possibly be true, that a colony could defeat the then world superpower? I take it for granted that people with access to the internet can check things for themselves. So when I post something at a science forum, the same is true.

For those of you who do not know what a search engine does, here is a link about cosmic inflation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_universe

Heather Couper wrote in her book, "Endless Universe", that the Big Bang was actually the bang you would get from a kilogram of matter converted to energy. She goes on to point out that as the universe cooled, the separation of the Superforce is where the energy that kept inflation going came from. This is the energy that created the 100 billion galaxies and kept the universe from collapsing into a black hole. Inflation happens everywhere everyday at a quantum level, there's just not a second Superforce lying around to fuel it into a second universe. Since she is (or was when she wrote the book) the professor of Astronomy at Gresham College, London and the former president of the British Astronomical Association, I leave it to you as to whether or not she is just making that part up.

Einstein calculated the effect of gravity on light a long time before we could physically measure it. Similarly we can calculate what happened in the universe at 1x10^-37 seconds even though we cannot physically measure that yet.
Allegedly, there are people who just do not understand math!

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Its a very good theory and its very logical.

In other universe maybe but not ours.

Originally Posted by Arch2008

When someone asks me what we celebrate on 4 July here in the U.S. I point out that it is the signing of the Declaration of Independence marking the birth of my nation. Some could always question whether I am just making this up. How could this possibly be true, that a colony could defeat the then world superpower? I take it for granted that people with access to the internet can check things for themselves. So when I post something at a science forum, the same is true.

I like your analogy, if your care to continue. The formation of your and my country, was from people who believed beyond the accepted. It was the first country or group of people (society) that refused to believe, people could not govern themselves and challenged literally the world, they could and have spent 225 years or so, to prove that philosophy.

In science, IMO the accepted is not challenged, certainly to a degree of allowing study/testing/education or CHALLENGING that acceptance. Were well beyond logical challenge and to the point where any person with some degree in any some field, which is near regulated by some entity (religious or political), trumps all else, for jobs or what have you. Hypothetical followed by hypothetical explanations or unexplained reasoning, does not equal certainty in my opinion. Also in my opinion, many of your certainties and explained facts are pure speculation of the unexplainable. Telling the new to science, their doubts to what could be or should be, is equal to telling those founders/framers, they were wrong and destined to some failure...

Originally Posted by jackson33

Originally Posted by Arch2008

When someone asks me what we celebrate on 4 July here in the U.S. I point out that it is the signing of the Declaration of Independence marking the birth of my nation. Some could always question whether I am just making this up. How could this possibly be true, that a colony could defeat the then world superpower? I take it for granted that people with access to the internet can check things for themselves. So when I post something at a science forum, the same is true.

I like your analogy, if your care to continue. The formation of your and my country, was from people who believed beyond the accepted. It was the first country or group of people (society) that refused to believe, people could not govern themselves and challenged literally the world, they could and have spent 225 years or so, to prove that philosophy.

In science, IMO the accepted is not challenged, certainly to a degree of allowing study/testing/education or CHALLENGING that acceptance. Were well beyond logical challenge and to the point where any person with some degree in any some field, which is near regulated by some entity (religious or political), trumps all else, for jobs or what have you. Hypothetical followed by hypothetical explanations or unexplained reasoning, does not equal certainty in my opinion. Also in my opinion, many of your certainties and explained facts are pure speculation of the unexplainable. Telling the new to science, their doubts to what could be or should be, is equal to telling those founders/framers, they were wrong and destined to some failure...

Agree ...

NASA says that the Big Bang theory is the most tested theory in history. It is constantly challenged, in part and in its entirety, every day, in every way. Except that it has never been challenged successfully. If someone wrote a scientific paper titled, "Problems with the round Earth theory", that doesn't make the theory that the Earth is round in any way controversial or "in question". Papers get read, not just by 'accepted/evil Big Science', but by lots of people. If BBT was successfully challenged, then everyone would know about it because the challenger would be holding a Nobel prize. Remember that Einstein wasn't even employed as a scientist when he published his paper on Special Relativity. Papers are reviewed by everyone in the world. The notion that some kind of 'Masonic Science' is squashing dissent really requires something like proof.

Some people refuse to accept that we can really know things. Einstein didn't mean to say that E=mc^2 some of the time, or only when it doesn't conflict with anything that your Sunday school teacher taught you. Scientific facts are certainties. The ultimate knowledge of the effect of Relativity on the universe was in a way a disappointment even to its discoverer, because he didn't like the idea that the universe had a beginning. Even Einstein did not like knowing some things about the universe. As Carl Sagan said, "Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."

If someone asks if there is an equation showing the relation between energy and matter, I will always post no less than what is known with scientific certainty. I will do the same for the BBT.
Agreed?

Arch2008. There are endless thousands of books and articles on superstrings. Show me one piece of actual evidence that they exist.

Evidence for the BB is basically the CMB and red shift and of course, it is totally impossible that they might have another explanation because God himself told us.

Gravity does not bend light but the medium it travels through (space).

Suppose we lived in a world where it was always 90-95.C and with limited science we have cooled water down to 10.C. So we draw a graph and we can prove that water vanishes not far below -10.C . Except that we know everything changes at 4.C and 0.C .

I have found people who do know the math to be extremely inflexible and 100% dependant on everything in science being 100% beyond criticism.

A question I asked to such a person on another forum. The Universe is finely balanced at 158 billion light years in diameter. Solid matter is created at 380,000 years after the BB. The reason why the universe of maybe 7x10^22 solar masses and such a size did not contract into a black hole is.....?

Arch2008. BB most tested theory? Explain.

It failed the afterglow test. In 2005, a scientist with 50 years in the business showed that hundreds of reading from WMAP said to be from the CMB were exactly the same as HI readings in our own galaxy. Duh! There are many websites pointing out obvious defects in the BB if you care to check.

Several years ago an open letter was published in New Scientist from 27 top people in the field saying they believed that the BB was wrong and pointing out problems with it.

Expansion should have been perfectly uniform (since it was unbiased) till solid matter appeared so explain how the BB produced:
1. Walls of galaxies.
2. A hole in the universe a billion light years across.
3. A black hole of 18,000,000,000 solar masses.

Type 1A supernovae have been shown not to be standard candles. For any number of reasons they can have different luminosities.

hey if it expanded with a such a great speed, then we might be in the past.(Einstein relativity theory).....
Or what is the correct explanation of this according to RT?

Originally Posted by Arch2008

NASA says that the Big Bang theory is the most tested theory in history. It is constantly challenged, in part and in its entirety, every day, in every way. Except that it has never been challenged successfully.

That's because it fails the Popperian test of disprovability. The only refutation it admits of would be to prove that Hubble didn't observe a uniform redshift or that the CMB is a myth.

For centuries people said you couldn't disprove Christianity unless you could prove that the earth doesn't exist and there are no people living on it.

It's all in the way you frame it. You can frame any argument so that it's irrefutable, by either demanding an impossible amount of evidence, or using assumptions that are unknown and unknowable. Then congratulate yourself all day when nobody refutes it.

If someone wrote a scientific paper titled, "Problems with the round Earth theory", that doesn't make the theory that the Earth is round in any way controversial or "in question".

True, but round Earth theory doesn't use consensus among members of the scientific community as the cornerstone of its credibility, like the BBT does.

Papers get read, not just by 'accepted/evil Big Science', but by lots of people. If BBT was successfully challenged, then everyone would know about it because the challenger would be holding a Nobel prize. Remember that Einstein wasn't even employed as a scientist when he published his paper on Special Relativity. Papers are reviewed by everyone in the world. The notion that some kind of 'Masonic Science' is squashing dissent really requires something like proof.

Well a lot of people fought his theory. He succeeded because he was replacing an old theory with a new one. If he were merely challenging Gallilean mechanics by citing contradictions with experiment, nobody would have taken him seriously.

For some reason, the political will of the community is unwilling to allow any vacuums in its understanding. The answers to many questions are never allowed to simply be unknown, especially if the community has previously claimed to have an answer.

The community will never go from being able to say when the universe began, and how, and what it means...... to admitting they just plain don't know. (Any more than the Catholics are willing to give up their 6,000 year Earth time line.)

Some people refuse to accept that we can really know things. Einstein didn't mean to say that E=mc^2 some of the time, or only when it doesn't conflict with anything that your Sunday school teacher taught you.

My Sunday school teacher taught me that the universe began 6,000 years ago. That certainly isn't what I believe today, nor why I question the BBT.

Scientific facts are certainties. T

No. Religious facts are certainties. Scientific facts are always open to debate. If that ever changes, the community will have become the very monster it sought so long to break away from.

he ultimate knowledge of the effect of Relativity on the universe was in a way a disappointment even to its discoverer, because he didn't like the idea that the universe had a beginning. Even Einstein did not like knowing some things about the universe. As Carl Sagan said, "Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."

That effect was not based on knowledge. It was based on misinterpretation.

Assumption of Relativity + Assumption of Approximately Uniform Matter Distribution = Conclusion that Universe Cannot be Infinite.

However.........Assumption of Uniform Matter Distribution is probably a very faulty assumption.

Basically, Relativity would bind Einstein to that conclusion, if all of the other assumptions we are bundling with it were true. But, they are not true, so the conclusion is not true.

If someone asks if there is an equation showing the relation between energy and matter, I will always post no less than what is known with scientific certainty. I will do the same for the BBT.
Agreed?

I'd prefer if you treated things that have been confirmed by direct observation and measurement (such as E=MC^2) differently than things which have only been confirmed by speculation.

Until someone can quote a scientist who is holding a Nobel Prize for replacing the BBT, then what you have posted is speculation. It's that simple.

It's the flaw in the scientific method: No abandonment of belief unless it's replaced with a new belief. (Also the flaw of religion)

Science will not abandon fact for belief.

And yet we criticize religion so much for it........

My concern is this: What if one part of the BBT is disproven or superceded by a better theory, but the rest of the BBT isn't addressed by the new theory?

The fact we've put so many eggs in one huge basket makes it an all or nothing shot: Either you have to explain everything, or nothing, with no in between. This is not an intellectual environment in which science can progress.

(Any institution that tries to replace fact with belief deserves to be criticized.)

When Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, it was a better theory of gravity than what Newton had discovered. However, we still teach Newtonian physics, because the equations are easier. Einstein added to the truth that Newton had found. Discoveries may yet come that will add to the truth of the Big Bang Theory. Until then, we don’t have to explore hypotheses that are not true, because that is a waste of resources, not intellectual cowardice. All of the ‘eggs’ are in the BBT basket, because they belong there.

Originally Posted by Arch2008

(Any institution that tries to replace fact with belief deserves to be criticized.)

When Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, it was a better theory of gravity than what Newton had discovered. However, we still teach Newtonian physics, because the equations are easier. Einstein added to the truth that Newton had found. Discoveries may yet come that will add to the truth of the Big Bang Theory. Until then, we don’t have to explore hypotheses that are not true, because that is a waste of resources, not intellectual cowardice. All of the ‘eggs’ are in the BBT basket, because they belong there.

What if some discoveries contradict that truth, but don't replace it with a new truth? Suppose one part of the BBT is replaced, but the replacement has nothing to say about the other parts.

What if it turns out in real life that many of the phenomena the BBT brings together and explains don't actually belong together? Would science be able to accept that?

That's the problem with unified theories. Sometimes we won't let them be broken apart because we prefer the simple solution over the real solution.

Originally Posted by Arch2008

(Any institution that tries to replace fact with belief deserves to be criticized.)

When Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, it was a better theory of gravity than what Newton had discovered. However, we still teach Newtonian physics, because the equations are easier. Einstein added to the truth that Newton had found. Discoveries may yet come that will add to the truth of the Big Bang Theory. Until then, we don’t have to explore hypotheses that are not true, because that is a waste of resources, not intellectual cowardice. All of the ‘eggs’ are in the BBT basket, because they belong there.

Ok "dude"
Let's do thins then
Tell me why BBT happend and i will give you the theory and proves that BBT a story for kids like you with golden photons and prince charming neutrons is a joke.
You can win a nobel price from what you told me ... you can take the golory i do not care but answer corectly what i asked.
NASA here NASA there , nasa is for you all to know what we let you know.

Originally Posted by kris12

I don`t understand how is it that just after the Big Bang universe spread faster than speed of light, than at one moment it decreased its speed, only to over the course of time increase again?
Isn`t that illogical?

The universe does not compress to a single pinpoint. Every galaxy has a black hole in the center of it which explodes. Antimatter erases the previous galaxy and the entire universe is replaced.
The energy wave from the pinpoints expand at the speed of light. The galaxies expand as well at much lower speed. Every galaxy is an independent inertial frame of reference.
The energy wave goes out 15.9 billion light years but returns to the black hole at the center of each galaxy. The build up cause a space time breakdown and the galaxy big bang occurs.

Originally Posted by JerryG38

Originally Posted by kris12

I don`t understand how is it that just after the Big Bang universe spread faster than speed of light, than at one moment it decreased its speed, only to over the course of time increase again?
Isn`t that illogical?

The universe does not compress to a single pinpoint. Every galaxy has a black hole in the center of it which explodes. Antimatter erases the previous galaxy and the entire universe is replaced.
The energy wave from the pinpoints expand at the speed of light. The galaxies expand as well at much lower speed. Every galaxy is an independent inertial frame of reference.
The energy wave goes out 15.9 billion light years but returns to the black hole at the center of each galaxy. The build up cause a space time breakdown and the galaxy big bang occurs.

kid get real!
There is no black hole in the center of our galaxy!
there are no black holes.
the fenomenon that you say and nisunderstud as a black hole is a joke.

Well Kojax, we are making progress.
A discovery that contradicts a truth, but does not replace the truth with a truth is what we commonly call a lie. Now if you would just recognize that these non-BBT universe ‘parts’ that you want to be part of the true universe are just lies, then you would see the truth of your post. That is the simple solution.

Oh, almost forgot! Jerry and SG-Riiiiight.

I would like to remind nearly all of you that this is a science forum, not a 'see I've got this theory' forum. Statements should be backed up by evidence or relevant citations, not hot air.

Well, what if an alternate explanation for the observed evidence can be found? The current big bang theory is simply an explanation of observations and the product of extrapolation. it might be the correct one (it is best supported by evidence), but you can't completely discard the possibility of alternate explanations. The theory surrounding it, the maths, does an accurate job of predicting current observed facts when certain initial conditions are fed in, but the fact that current theory cannot discribe the origin/cause of observations on the quantum scale means that the possibility exists that another set of initial circumstances could have the same result, no?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Well, what if an alternate explanation for the observed evidence can be found? The current big bang theory is simply an explanation of observations and the product of extrapolation. it might be the correct one (it is best supported by evidence), but you can't completely discard the possibility of alternate explanations. The theory surrounding it, the maths, does an accurate job of predicting current observed facts when certain initial conditions are fed in, but the fact that current theory cannot discribe the origin/cause of observations on the quantum scale means that the possibility exists that another set of initial circumstances could have the same result, no?

Wha?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_J._Farnsworth
Whatever rings your bell man.
another set of initial circumstances could have the same result is a hell yeah!

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I would like to remind nearly all of you that this is a science forum, not a 'see I've got this theory' forum. Statements should be backed up by evidence or relevant citations, not hot air.

Although I agree when referencing existing theories by other people that do exist should be backed up by evidence if referencing. But if it is someones own theory I see no trouble in that being added to debate, because it allows a new angle of perception. Come on face it, if we referenced science experiments all day long we'd be bored, and most of all old theories aren't going to let us see anything new.

Originally Posted by Arch2008

Well Kojax, we are making progress.
A discovery that contradicts a truth, but does not replace the truth with a truth is what we commonly call a lie. Now if you would just recognize that these non-BBT universe ‘parts’ that you want to be part of the true universe are just lies, then you would see the truth of your post. That is the simple solution.

Oh, almost forgot! Jerry and SG-Riiiiight.

By that reasoning a person accused of a crime would not only have to prove they didn't do it, but tell the court who did.

What I mean is: you can disprove a positive without introducing a new positive to replace it. That is logically possible, and the disproof would not have to be a lie.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Well, what if an alternate explanation for the observed evidence can be found? The current big bang theory is simply an explanation of observations and the product of extrapolation. it might be the correct one (it is best supported by evidence), but you can't completely discard the possibility of alternate explanations. The theory surrounding it, the maths, does an accurate job of predicting current observed facts when certain initial conditions are fed in, but the fact that current theory cannot discribe the origin/cause of observations on the quantum scale means that the possibility exists that another set of initial circumstances could have the same result, no?

It's funny how tempting it is to speak of there being a "correct one" among all the theories the scientific community has so far proposed and considered. When you tie so many (possibly separate) phenomena together, there may not exist a correct theory to explain them all (at least in one shot).

If it turns out they're not all connected, but we're looking for a theory that says they are, then maybe what we're looking for is a lie.

When a lawyer clears his innocent client of guilt, he replaces a lie with a truth. Science replaces myth with fact. There are lots of explanations for where the universe came from, but there is only one theory supported by fact.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/

There is a difference between directly observed data and inferred data. Where can I find a list of directly observed data? What we have is the CMBR, the varying red shift of light from galaxies and the relative abundances of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. What is the proposed mechanism behind expansion/inflation? Is expansion/inflation predicted by pre-existing theory and how (relativity?)?

Kalster, just because no one observed the birth of the universe, does not mean that this event cannot be calculated. Science is not a lawyer trying to reconstruct something by inference alone. Scientists calculate events mathematically one step at a time all the way back to the first second after the Big Bang. We have proof that galaxies were closer together in the past than they are now. They calculate what the universe was like one billion years ago, then ten billion and finally 13.7 billion years ago. At this point, the entire mass of the universe fits in an atom. Starting from this point, Gamow calculated how much hydrogen, helium and lithium this would create and it matches observations in the present universe. This is a further proof of the Big Bang theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

The energy of the Big Bang caused the universe to expand exponentially. After about 6 billion years this expansion slowed until the effect of Dark Energy caused the expansion to begin to accelerate.
http://www.answers.com/topic/dark-energy?cat=technology

The expansion was not known prior to Hubble’s evidence of the red shift of nearby galaxies. Relativity predicts that the universe must expand or contract. George Lemaitre figured this out, but had no proof until Hubble’s discovery.
http://www.amnh.org/education/resour..._lemaitre.html

The energy of the Big Bang caused the universe to expand exponentially. After about 6 billion years this expansion slowed until the effect of Dark Energy caused the expansion to begin to accelerate.

But aren't dark energy and dark matter inferred? That is what I mean. I understand the basic points of how they arrived at the big bang theory, I don't even contest them necessarily. I am merely pointing out the fact that inferred "facts" are highly provisional and cannot provide a deep enough explanation of past events. The standard model is very close to complete, but not entirely shown to be so and further advancements might still alter the picture of the big bang. “Dark energy” as the mechanism of inflation is still to be demonstrated, no?

Originally Posted by Arch2008

When a lawyer clears his innocent client of guilt, he replaces a lie with a truth. Science replaces myth with fact. There are lots of explanations for where the universe came from, but there is only one theory supported by fact.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/

No, he doesn't have to do that. (He may choose to, but he isn't required to.) This is precisely my point. The state shows up with a theory of the crime. IE. the state fills a void in the public's mind by claiming to know who committed this awful event.

The defense lawyer doesn't have to claim to know who did it. The lawyer doesn't have to fill that void in the public's mind. Any system of thought based on skepticism has to be willing to leave voids un-filled.

By the end of the trial, the public may have no idea what-so-ever who did it.

Kalster-Scientists observe something and then do calculations to determine what is going on. No one says, “Dark Matter had opportunity and motive.” The visible matter/energy in galaxies only have about a fifth of the mass necessary to keep them from flying apart. They proved with observations by WMAP that our understanding of physics is correct and they exhausted all other possibilities. They discovered that neutrinos do have a tiny bit of mass and learned other things about the universe. However, dark matter still remains. It is not conjecture, it is a calculated fact. If 1+x=3, then x=2. Also, the universe is expanding. Something is causing it. Scientists have calculated the amount of energy to cause the expansion, about 70% of the mass of the universe. Again, this dark energy has a real effect. No one has ever directly seen a quark or an electron. These things aren’t implied from what we know they are part of what we know.

Kojax-So you want a void when it comes to the creation of the universe?
I don't.

The validity of the outcome of any mathematical calculation depends entirely upon the validity of the assumptions the equations set up around. Those assumptions are non-mathematical in nature, and are composed of three things:

1) - Evidence

2) - What we interpret that evidence to mean.

3) - Conjecture.


Einstein's calculation that the universe could not be infinite in size was based upon the assumption that matter would be more-or-less evenly distributed throughout the entire area. An assumption that is almost certainly false. If you remove that assumption (perhaps replacing it with the assumption of a tapered universe) and then re-do the calculations, you'd get an entirely different result.

The same is true for a lot of the BBT. We're assuming the redshift is Doppler redshift. We're assuming the uniformity with which elements are distributed needs a mechanism behind it. We're assuming the CMBR isn't being emitted by the thinly spread out background gases that permeate most of space.