Thread: Big Bang Denial

I'm just starting this thread as a place for Big Bang denialists to vent. It might belong in pseudo-science.

For me, I just have too hard a time believing that the universe could be finite in time or space. It's a sufficiently ludicrous proposition in my mind that I tend to require a very high standard of evidence in order to believe it. I don't have a good refutation for the evidence that supports it. I'm just in denial, and so I have to keep examining the evidence until I either convince myself or disprove it. So, the evidence as I understand it is:

1) - The Hubble Redshift - It is observed that light from distant galaxies is uniformly red shifted across every frequency of light, and by an amount directly proportional to its distance.

2) - The CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) - Low frequency light conforming to the pattern of a perfect black body (hot object radiating light due to its heat) is observed to be coming at us from every direction in space.

3) - Uniformity of the occurrence of elements throughout observable space.

#1 would require the most explanation.
#2 requires slightly less

I don't consider #3 to be very compelling at all, because it would be equally explainable by statistical theories. In any random process occurring on a large scale, we shouldn't expect any large area of space to deviate from the norm by a significant amount.


edit: just now noticing "big band denial" and Lol'ing like crazy.

In regard to Big Band Denial it is my belief that the Glenn Miller Orchestra never existed.

I guess kojax was just "In the Mood"

Originally Posted by kojax

3) - Uniformity of the occurrence of elements throughout observable space.

I don't consider #3 to be very compelling at all, because it would be equally explainable by statistical theories. In any random process occurring on a large scale, we shouldn't expect any large area of space to deviate from the norm by a significant amount.

More convincing is the relative abundance of the elements, which is consistent with nucleosynthesis models based on the big bang hypothesis.

Most convincing is the work of Hawking and Penrose that shows that if one accepts general relativity, the observed expansion of the universe, and a minimal matter content consistent with observation, then GR predictss a big bang. This analysis is probably ok at least after the first second, but does not extend to t=0. Nobody knows what happens when strong gravitational fields and quantum effects are both important.

I think my problem with that reasoning is that nature has lot of similar consistencies that involve no causality at all. Some patterns just match up because they do. You see e and pi, or golden circles,..... etc in a lot of phenomena that aren't caused by each other.

We can't always go around insisting that every event that does this is necessarily going to be caused by a common root. (If you did that in the social sciences you would be called a "conspiracy theorist") It's tempting, of course, because it allows us to relate everything we see to one common theme, but it also runs the risk of ignoring complexity that honestly is there.

Originally Posted by kojax

I think my problem with that reasoning is that nature has lot of similar consistencies that involve no causality at all. Some patterns just match up because they do. You see e and pi, or golden circles,..... etc in a lot of phenomena that aren't caused by each other.

We can't always go around insisting that every event that does this is necessarily going to be caused by a common root. (If you did that in the social sciences you would be called a "conspiracy theorist") It's tempting, of course, because it allows us to relate everything we see to one common theme, but it also runs the risk of ignoring complexity that honestly is there.

Your problem is a lack of understanding of physics. You desperately need to take a physics class.

I've taken a number of them thus far, though I'm probably only half way to my undergrad. Which is why I commented on the incredible amount of symmetry I observe between unrelated phenomena.

You're right, however, that I don't know the complete basis for BBT in it's entirety, only the basics, like how to calculate Doppler shift, and stuff like that.

Originally Posted by kojax

1) - The Hubble Redshift - It is observed that light from distant galaxies is uniformly red shifted across every frequency of light, and by an amount directly proportional to its distance.

This is only true for those objects relatively close to us. Further objects show a systematic deviation from this relationship of the sort that one expects in the most general class of homogeneous expanding relativistic models of the universe.

2) - The CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) - Low frequency light conforming to the pattern of a perfect black body (hot object radiating light due to its heat) is observed to be coming at us from every direction in space.

The radiation is not that of a perfect blackbody, it is apparently a redshifted perfect blackbody spectrum. Additionally, it has small variations in specific locations in the sky on the order of 1 in 100000 or less.

3) - Uniformity of the occurrence of elements throughout observable space.

Uniformity alone is not all. The relative abundance of different elements is itself part of the evidence, given the physical processes that can create such relative abundance.

In any random process occurring on a large scale, we shouldn't expect any large area of space to deviate from the norm by a significant amount.

This is not the case. Identical Bayes-Laplace processes of any type should have significant differences from each other in different locations.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

3) - Uniformity of the occurrence of elements throughout observable space.

Uniformity alone is not all. The relative abundance of different elements is itself part of the evidence, given the physical processes that can create such relative abundance.

Could you expand on this?

My understanding of the issue is that hydrogen is constantly forming. So, the question is how often does hydrogen get fused to make heavier elements? How long do those elements persist before some process causes them to fuse upwards to a higher place on the periodic table or undergo fission downwards to a lower place?

In any random process occurring on a large scale, we shouldn't expect any large area of space to deviate from the norm by a significant amount.

This is not the case. Identical Bayes-Laplace processes of any type should have significant differences from each other in different locations.

Even when the sample groups of stars literally number in the billions and trillions?

I've done some intern-level work as an insurance actuary, to help me get a better grasp on the concepts involved in the science of probability. (Quantum physics is the area I want to specialize in when I'm done with my degree(s)) What I know is that the larger the sample size, the more things are isolated from randomness. A table or a chair in your home doesn't spontaneously pop out of existence and reappear on your lawn outside in the rain like a single photon might do. Because a large number of quantum objects gathered together to make a table behaves more deterministically than a small group of quantum objects would.

Why wouldn't that thinking extend to a galaxy vs. a star?

It is the wrong big bang.

We have infinte space and infinite matter.

Energy and matter were separate.

When energy interacted with the matter then was the bang.

This causes motion within a static universe.

As light gets older it shifts to red. It can be used to measure distance.

Used to measure speed would have would have distant objects slow down as you approached, there would be less red shift or at a infinate distance would move at an infinate speed.

Einstein had it right.

Originally Posted by kojax

Could you expand on this?

My understanding of the issue is that hydrogen is constantly forming. So, the question is how often does hydrogen get fused to make heavier elements?

I don't know what reason you have for believing that hydrogen always forms. As to the other elements, steller nucleosynthesis cannot account for the levels of deuterium, helium, and lithium that we see.

Even when the sample groups of stars literally number in the billions and trillions?

Some random processes end up very different in different places. You said "any random process". The details matter.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by kojax

Could you expand on this?

My understanding of the issue is that hydrogen is constantly forming. So, the question is how often does hydrogen get fused to make heavier elements?

I don't know what reason you have for believing that hydrogen always forms. As to the other elements, steller nucleosynthesis cannot account for the levels of deuterium, helium, and lithium that we see.

Free protons and neutrons are constantly getting thrown free in nuclear fusion or fission processes. The neutrons decay by emitting an electron and an electron antineutrino to become protons.

What is a proton? (Answer: a proton is a hydrogen ion with a +1 charge)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_ne...and_beta_decay

Even when the sample groups of stars literally number in the billions and trillions?

Some random processes end up very different in different places. You said "any random process". The details matter.

That's true if something influences it, but if you just took a bunch of six sided dice and rolled billion and trillions of them, then look at a region with say 2 billion die rolls in it, that region would look nearly the same as any other region that has 2 billion die rolls in it.

So, if the process is perfectly random, then any large region of space should look approximately identical to any other. If it were not perfectly random, but something influenced it, that is the only reason why we should expect any substantial differences to be present.

Any freed protons in fission reactions are negligible because the amount of fissible material in the universe is negligible as it has all been formed in violently exploding Gen I stars ( or is it Gen II, I get them mixed up, the earlier hydrogen rich stars )
Any freed protons in fusion reactions are always less than the amount of protons originally involved, and as fusion only happens in stars, the amount of hydrogen is pretty well fixed.
the observed amounts are approx. 74% hydrogen, 25% helium and 1% deuterium, lithium nd heavier elements ( plus or minus 1%, I would think ).
The calculated amounts for Big Bang nucleosynthesis are the same except for the heavier elements. I believe it was first calculated by G. Gamow and Sir F. Hoyle. Ironic since Hoyle was a proponent of the Steady State theory. He pretty well nailed the coffin shut on his theory and added proof for the Big Bang theory.

Originally Posted by kojax

Free protons and neutrons are constantly getting thrown free in nuclear fusion or fission processes. The neutrons decay by emitting an electron and an electron antineutrino to become protons.

OK, so you are talking of the creation of hydrogen of the by-product of existing interactions. But this is the transformation of existing matter into new form, so you aren't adding anything to the universe.

So, if the process is perfectly random, then any large region of space should look approximately identical to any other. If it were not perfectly random, but something influenced it, that is the only reason why we should expect any substantial differences to be present.

You seem to think that all perfectly random processes are just like 6-sided die. They need not be, since the path of the process may be dependent on the developing history.

Recently I saw a link re: a 12 y.o. out to disprove.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-be...rove-big-bang/

Please note you folks are astronomically out of my league and I claim no discernment. thanks for not eating me alive.

To have a balanced universe before any bangs I would suggest the only matter was neutrons. After blowing them apart the first combination would be hydrogen. It is quite possible the neutron is the source of gravity.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

To have a balanced universe before any bangs I would suggest the only matter was neutrons. After blowing them apart the first combination would be hydrogen. It is quite possible the neutron is the source of gravity.

Please present the evidence, theorettical and/or empirical, that supports this nonsense.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by kojax

Free protons and neutrons are constantly getting thrown free in nuclear fusion or fission processes. The neutrons decay by emitting an electron and an electron antineutrino to become protons.

OK, so you are talking of the creation of hydrogen of the by-product of existing interactions. But this is the transformation of existing matter into new form, so you aren't adding anything to the universe.

There's no need to add anything. Any given reaction has a probability of yielding a range of byproducts. If hydrogen is among the most probable byproducts, then we should expect that over time, its abundance would become very large.

Once its abundance is large, then it will start having more fusion reactions occur (because more hydrogen means a greater likelihood of at least some of it finding its way into a star). At some point, an equilibrium will be reached where it's getting fused into other stuff just as often as it's getting released by fusion reactions.

The equilibrium point tells us how much abundance we should expect to see after the process has been running for a long, long time.

So, if the process is perfectly random, then any large region of space should look approximately identical to any other. If it were not perfectly random, but something influenced it, that is the only reason why we should expect any substantial differences to be present.

You seem to think that all perfectly random processes are just like 6-sided die. They need not be, since the path of the process may be dependent on the developing history.

Space is highly compartmentalized, isn't it? Most regions or clusters of stars only interact gravitationally with others, just like six sided dice not determining one anothers' outcomes.

Analyzing the cumulative effects that lead to a particular result is deterministic in nature, but you could apply the same logic to a die roll, looking at what objects the die struck before coming to rest, or how it was thrown.

Originally Posted by kojax

There's no need to add anything. Any given reaction has a probability of yielding a range of byproducts. If hydrogen is among the most probable byproducts, then we should expect that over time, its abundance would become very large.

Once its abundance is large, then it will start having more fusion reactions occur (because more hydrogen means a greater likelihood of at least some of it finding its way into a star). At some point, an equilibrium will be reached where it's getting fused into other stuff just as often as it's getting released by fusion reactions.

The equilibrium point tells us how much abundance we should expect to see after the process has been running for a long, long time.

Since you have worked out this equilibrium point, where is it? Does it produce the observed ratios? What is the difference between your calulations and Hoyle's?

Space is highly compartmentalized, isn't it? Most regions or clusters of stars only interact gravitationally with others, just like six sided dice not determining one anothers' outcomes.

Indepedence is not your problem; you seem to be ignoring just how many sides each die can have.

Dr Rocket

To have a beginning you need stasis beforehand. Neutrons being of equal weight, no charge, and with each neutron having equal gravity, matter would be evenly distributed through any size universe. I prefer an infinite one.

In any case with an evenly spaced universe with no motion or change there is no time so the beginning was either instantaneous or after eternity.

In this situation energy would be considered as separate from matter and the combining the bang.

Evenly dispersed matter with an uneven bang leaves room for anomalies in matter dispersion.

The large amount of matter in a small space, bang, dispersal, breakdown, recombination, bang... means I have written this before.

I'll have to end this the Hatter is coming over for tea.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Dr Rocket

To have a beginning you need stasis beforehand. Neutrons being of equal weight, no charge, and with each neutron having equal gravity, matter would be evenly distributed through any size universe. I prefer an infinite one.

In any case with an evenly spaced universe with no motion or change there is no time so the beginning was either instantaneous or after eternity.

In this situation energy would be considered as separate from matter and the combining the bang.

Evenly dispersed matter with an uneven bang leaves room for anomalies in matter dispersion.

The large amount of matter in a small space, bang, dispersal, breakdown, recombination, bang... means I have written this before.

I'll have to end this the Hatter is coming over for tea.

" That's not right - that's not even wrong” – Wolfgang Pauli

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by kojax

Could you expand on this?

My understanding of the issue is that hydrogen is constantly forming. So, the question is how often does hydrogen get fused to make heavier elements?

I don't know what reason you have for believing that hydrogen always forms. As to the other elements, steller nucleosynthesis cannot account for the levels of deuterium, helium, and lithium that we see.

I should have looked at the names more carefully, before I started googling Hoyle. I see now that the problem is the abundance of light elements other than normal Hydrogen.

I guess normal hydrogen fusion doesn't occur often enough to give us a lot of Deuterium and Helium? I'm sure I will have deepen my understanding on nuclear physics a great deal if I want to understand why that is a phenomenon. Aren't those the most common products of pure hydrogen fusion? If there were a small amount of it that would be a surprise to me, but having too much of it?

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by kojax

There's no need to add anything. Any given reaction has a probability of yielding a range of byproducts. If hydrogen is among the most probable byproducts, then we should expect that over time, its abundance would become very large.

Once its abundance is large, then it will start having more fusion reactions occur (because more hydrogen means a greater likelihood of at least some of it finding its way into a star). At some point, an equilibrium will be reached where it's getting fused into other stuff just as often as it's getting released by fusion reactions.

The equilibrium point tells us how much abundance we should expect to see after the process has been running for a long, long time.

Since you have worked out this equilibrium point, where is it? Does it produce the observed ratios? What is the difference between your calulations and Hoyle's?

I don't think it takes a very precise calculation to predict that there would be quite a lot of it. Because the process that limits its abundance is...... its abundance. Once there is enough of it out there to form stars it starts fusing into heavier elements and makes itself scarcer.

Space is highly compartmentalized, isn't it? Most regions or clusters of stars only interact gravitationally with others, just like six sided dice not determining one anothers' outcomes.

Indepedence is not your problem; you seem to be ignoring just how many sides each die can have.

I accept that it's more like a bazillion sided die, and some of the sides are bigger than others. Sometimes multiple sides might even have the same numbers written on them.

Originally Posted by kojax

Since you have worked out this equilibrium point, where is it? Does it produce the observed ratios? What is the difference between your calulations and Hoyle's?

I don't think it takes a very precise calculation to predict that there would be quite a lot of it. [/quote]
Not good enough. In order to put forward a reasonable theory to replace the contemporary cosmological model, you have to provide an account of the relative abundance of different elements. If you merely want to put forward a crazy theory, then you say whatever you like.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Not good enough. In order to put forward a reasonable theory to replace the contemporary cosmological model, you have to provide an account of the relative abundance of different elements. If you merely want to put forward a crazy theory, then you say whatever you like.

Looking up the BB prediction by Gamow, there is no mention of the observed 74% Hydrogen, 25% Helium and 1% everything else being unexpected or unlikely. If it's not anomalous, then it doesn't need an explanation. (Which also obviates the need for a counter theory.) My point was that there is no reliable reason to doubt that Hydrogen emerged in the abundance that it has emerged simply because it should have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpher-Bethe-Gamow_paper

When I post in the 911 thread in Pseudo, people tell me that I'm assigning unnecessary significance to things that might be unrelated, which might have occurred on their own without a "conspiracy" behind them. Conspiracy theory is of course more reassuring, because it allows a person to unite all of those coincidences into a single unified event........ but that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by kojax

Looking up the BB prediction by Gamow,...

Why don't we stop there. Why would you look to papers that are that old? Why don't you look at very comprehensive reviews of the subject from the last 30 years?

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by kojax

Looking up the BB prediction by Gamow,...

Why don't we stop there. Why would you look to papers that are that old? Why don't you look at very comprehensive reviews of the subject from the last 30 years?

Ok.... we'll move to something more general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ban...nthesis_theory

Apparently Helium 4 is the real jewel.

Helium-4
Main article: Helium-4

Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts a primordial abundance of about 25% helium-4 by mass, irrespective of the initial conditions of the universe. As long as the universe was hot enough for protons and neutrons to transform into each other easily, their ratio, determined solely by their relative masses, was about 1 neutron to 7 protons (allowing for some decay of neutrons into protons). Once it was cool enough, the neutrons quickly bound with an equal number of protons to form helium-4. Helium-4 is very stable and neither decays nor combines easily to form heavier nuclei. So out of every 16 nucleons (2 neutrons and 14 protons), 4 of these (25%) combined into one helium-4 nucleus. One analogy is to think of helium-4 as ash, and the amount of ash that one forms when one completely burns a piece of wood is insensitive to how one burns it.

The helium-4 abundance is important because there is far more helium-4 in the universe than can be explained by stellar nucleosynthesis. In addition, it provides an important test for the Big Bang theory. If the observed helium abundance is much different from 25%, then this would pose a serious challenge to the theory. This would particularly be the case if the early helium-4 abundance was much smaller than 25% because it is hard to destroy helium-4. For a few years during the mid-1990s, observations suggested that this might be the case, causing astrophysicists to talk about a Big Bang nucleosynthetic crisis, but further observations were consistent with the Big Bang theory.

Note that the article points out that both A Stellar Nuclear Synthesis is not considered a likely source, and B It's highly stable, and does not easily decay or fuse into heavier elements.

In an infinitely long lived universe, the stability would affect its abundance just as much as its reluctance to form, because only the relative difference between those two rates matters, not the total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-4

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by kojax

Looking up the BB prediction by Gamow,...

Why don't we stop there. Why would you look to papers that are that old? Why don't you look at very comprehensive reviews of the subject from the last 30 years?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0307244

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406663

Originally Posted by Harold1948

To have a beginning you need stasis beforehand.

What does that mean?

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Neutrons being of equal weight, no charge, and with each neutron having equal gravity, matter would be evenly distributed through any size universe. I prefer an infinite one.

Where do the neutrons come from?

Originally Posted by Harold1948

In any case with an evenly spaced universe with no motion or change there is no time so the beginning was either instantaneous or after eternity.

Bogus.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

In this situation energy would be considered as separate from matter and the combining the bang.

Why? Please explain!

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Evenly dispersed matter with an uneven bang leaves room for anomalies in matter dispersion.

Why is it "uneven"? What does it mean?

This all makes it obvious that you don't know, what you are talking about. It's all pure pseudoscience. Please stop spreading unfounded conjectures unless you have good evidence to support them.

Moderator mode:
If you continue to do so, I will move them to a more suitable place.
Dishmaster (Moderator).

to dishmaster:

The topic is big bang denial.

Unfortunately for science the word bogus has entered into it.

The bang theory has matter so concentrated it makes black holes look like cotton candy.

While all this matter is preloading to the point of bang we have a pre beginning beginning.

Then for some reason when it does blow it has an uneven dispersal.

We also have to suspend theory and posit for this particular occasion matter moves faster then the speed of light.

Then with matter spreading farther and farther apart we are to believe somehow gravity slows it down so we can have formation.

Then slowing down instead of the concentrated gravity slowing things down further we pick up the speed of expansion.

The single bang theory needs work.

If you bang unevenly through evenly dispersed matter, a random pattern of bangs, then some areas will void and others will become concentrated creating the varied universe. which for some strange bogus reason we seem to have.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

to dishmaster:

The topic is big bang denial.

Unfortunately for science the word bogus has entered into it.

The bang theory has matter so concentrated it makes black holes look like cotton candy.

While all this matter is preloading to the point of bang we have a pre beginning beginning.

Then for some reason when it does blow it has an uneven dispersal.

We also have to suspend theory and posit for this particular occasion matter moves faster then the speed of light.

Then with matter spreading farther and farther apart we are to believe somehow gravity slows it down so we can have formation.

Then slowing down instead of the concentrated gravity slowing things down further we pick up the speed of expansion.

The single bang theory needs work.

If you bang unevenly through evenly dispersed matter, a random pattern of bangs, then some areas will void and others will become concentrated creating the varied universe. which for some strange bogus reason we seem to have.

This is absurd. You are criticizing a theory about which, it is manifestly clear, you have not a clue.

What needs work, a LOT of work, is your understanding of what the big bang hypothesis actually says.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

to dishmaster:

The topic is big bang denial.

Unfortunately for science the word bogus has entered into it.

The bang theory has matter so concentrated it makes black holes look like cotton candy.

While all this matter is preloading to the point of bang we have a pre beginning beginning.

Then for some reason when it does blow it has an uneven dispersal.

We also have to suspend theory and posit for this particular occasion matter moves faster then the speed of light.

Then with matter spreading farther and farther apart we are to believe somehow gravity slows it down so we can have formation.

Then slowing down instead of the concentrated gravity slowing things down further we pick up the speed of expansion.

The single bang theory needs work.

If you bang unevenly through evenly dispersed matter, a random pattern of bangs, then some areas will void and others will become concentrated creating the varied universe. which for some strange bogus reason we seem to have.

Your reply is typical for crackpots. You ignore the criticism and concentrate on a single word without even understanding, why it was used. You are the one that is not open for criticism, not us. Present some evidence and we are willing to listen.

To dishmaster:

So you exchanged crackpot for bogus.

Big bangs biggest flaw is that a small point of matter, beyond explanation dense, spontaneously explodes. Then the dispersal is not uniform. The dispersal pattern has no other known factors to modulate the dispersal pattern. As the matter expands the inter-matter effect of gravity lessens. Any attempt to replicate an explosion of this type in a vacuum will result in a ball shaped pattern, evenly dispersed.

On the other hand if you have matter evenly dispersed across the universe and smaller reactions happen at random places the resulting cross rip will cause circular motion at points of intersection. Collisions between matter would result in reactions causing new forms of energy and matter to occur as in the Hadron Collider. Uneven reactions would cause matter to be unevenly distributed as to concentration, shape and motion.

Big bang denial should be to posit theories contrary to the accepted. To set a threshold of absolute proof to post an entry is counterproductive.

H

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Big bangs biggest flaw is that a small point of matter, beyond explanation dense, spontaneously explodes.

This is not the Big Bang hypothesis. It does not state anything about exploding dense matter.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Then the dispersal is not uniform. The dispersal pattern has no other known factors to modulate the dispersal pattern. As the matter expands the inter-matter effect of gravity lessens.

Not the matter expands, it's space. The matter is just dragged along.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Any attempt to replicate an explosion of this type in a vacuum will result in a ball shaped pattern, evenly dispersed.

Just one more reason, why your view on the Big Bang hypothesis is wrong. Please, first read up the the basics, and then start you criticism.

Mr Dishmaster.

Its:

Single point matter one bang.

vs

An infinite Universe with evenly dispersed matter having random bangs at random locations.

A deep space telescope may show if there are other formations indicating multiple bangs or just the one.

A time line from the single point to here calls for suspension of accepted laws.
Such as the movement at faster than the speed of light.

With multi the uneven collisions cause varied movement, division into smaller particles and combination into larger particles.

The people at Hadron are investigating creation through collision.

The multi theory stands on practicality. You can get to here from there.

H

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Mr Dishmaster.

Its:

Single point matter one bang.

vs

An infinite Universe with evenly dispersed matter having random bangs at random locations.

A deep space telescope may show if there are other formations indicating multiple bangs or just the one.

A time line from the single point to here calls for suspension of accepted laws.
Such as the movement at faster than the speed of light.

With multi the uneven collisions cause varied movement, division into smaller particles and combination into larger particles.

The people at Hadron are investigating creation through collision.

The multi theory stands on practicality. You can get to here from there.

H

A masterful demonstration of total lack of comprehension of the big bang hypothesis. Not even wrong.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Mr Dishmaster.

Its:

Single point matter one bang.

vs

An infinite Universe with evenly dispersed matter having random bangs at random locations.

No, it is

your imagination of the Big Bang

vs.

the well documented and actual theory/hypothesis of the Big Bang.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

A deep space telescope may show if there are other formations indicating multiple bangs or just the one.

How so? What would be the discriminating detection/observation?

Originally Posted by Harold1948

A time line from the single point to here calls for suspension of accepted laws.
Such as the movement at faster than the speed of light.

No, the currently accepted paradigm avoids this. No real superluminal velocities involved here. Read up the facts!

Originally Posted by Harold1948

With multi the uneven collisions cause varied movement, division into smaller particles and combination into larger particles.

I don't understand. By definition, a Big Bang constitutes the boundary of cause and effect.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

The people at Hadron are investigating creation through collision.

Depends on what you mean. Yes, by colliding particles, you transform mass and kinetic energy into particles. In this sense, you produce something new. However, this is not uniquely true for the LHC - every particle accelerator does that. The only difference is that the LHC can reach unprecedented energies with the hope to find more exotic particles that push the current realm of understand a bit more further to the actual moment of the hypothesised Big Bang. We will never be able to simulate it fully.

Now, start discussing by replying to the arguments.

Dr.Rocket, Dishmaster, and other experienced members of this forum, why do you guys even bother to correct or even comment and in some cases mock users such as Cyberia, Jagella, and Harold1948 etc..?? They surely dont seem to be showing any sense of accepting the fact that they are wrong, and as if thats not not bad enough they start saying that they are right. i just dont see the point in replying thats all.

Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz

Dr.Rocket, Dishmaster, and other experienced members of this forum, why do you guys even bother to correct or even comment and in some cases mock users such as Cyberia, Jagella, and Harold1948 etc..?? They surely dont seem to be showing any sense of accepting the fact that they are wrong, and as if thats not not bad enough they start saying that they are right. i just dont see the point in replying thats all.

The point is the benefit of lurkers who want to learn real science. Cybernia, Jagella, and Harold1948 themselves are of no consequence. The potential damage that they may inflict on young lurkers is what matters.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz

Dr.Rocket, Dishmaster, and other experienced members of this forum, why do you guys even bother to correct or even comment and in some cases mock users such as Cyberia, Jagella, and Harold1948 etc..?? They surely dont seem to be showing any sense of accepting the fact that they are wrong, and as if thats not not bad enough they start saying that they are right. i just dont see the point in replying thats all.

The point is the benefit of lurkers who want to learn real science. Cybernia, Jagella, and Harold1948 themselves are of no consequence. The potential damage that they may inflict on young lurkers is what matters.

point taken

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by kojax

Since you have worked out this equilibrium point, where is it? Does it produce the observed ratios? What is the difference between your calulations and Hoyle's?

I don't think it takes a very precise calculation to predict that there would be quite a lot of it.

Not good enough. In order to put forward a reasonable theory to replace the contemporary cosmological model, you have to provide an account of the relative abundance of different elements. If you merely want to put forward a crazy theory, then you say whatever you like.

Let me see if I understand the basic problem. Elements above the atomic mass of iron and nickel are theorized to form only via neutron capture, while elements of lower atomic mass can form via fusion of lighter elements.

Basically, the whole universe would move toward larger and larger abundances of nickel and iron. Whenever matter like Uranium forms, it has already absorbed so many neutrons that it would never release enough of them in a fission reaction to be substantial.

.... It would seem like there has to be a hole in that logic somewhere, but I don't know what it is, so I'll just have to keep studying it until I either find what it is or recognize my mistake.

The relative abundance of the light elements has nothing to do with anything as heavy as iron and nickel. The question is hwo we get the relative abundance of hydrogen to helium, deuterium, and lithium.

The wave length of light is modulated over distance and time. This is not a sign of expansion.

Extra Light speed is an invention to explain why the light arrives from the bang and we are already here ahead of it.

Even temperatures in the universe mitigate against a bang.

Question, when matter is at its single point does it occupy space? Does it have dimensions? Is there space or is it created at the bang? If the matter is all there is why is it categorized as infinitesimal? In relation to what? If matter is a point the only direction is out, why would it coalesce into something else?

Big bang theory and the earth is carried on the back of a turtle, about equal.

H

Originally Posted by Harold1948

The wave length of light is modulated over distance and time. This is not a sign of expansion.

Modulated by what? What is it a sign of, if not expansion? Do you think we haven't investigated all the other possibilities? Would you care to suggest some other explanation for cosmological redshift?

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Extra Light speed is an invention to explain why the light arrives from the bang and we are already here ahead of it.

Not at all. Superluminal expansion is required to explain how the opposites sides of the observable universe are so far apart. The light arriving from 380,000 years after the Big Bang (The CMB) was released everywhere in the universe, and it has been hitting us here ever since, coming in from increasing distance.

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Even temperatures in the universe mitigate against a bang.

What is your source for this?

Originally Posted by Harold1948

Question, when matter is at its single point does it occupy space? Does it have dimensions? Is there space or is it created at the bang? If the matter is all there is why is it categorized as infinitesimal? In relation to what? If matter is a point the only direction is out, why would it coalesce into something else?

Dunno. Why are you asking questions that BB theory does not, by definition, cover?

As far as I'm concerned, the Big Bang is pretty much a proven scientific theory (a fact), due to the following evidence (and more):

1) Red Shift and the Expansion of the Universe.

2) CMB- keeping everything at a constant temp of 2.7K, well except for a gas cloud they discovered (I forget its name) which is at a temp of about 1K due to its rapid expansion cooling it down.

3) WMAP- quantum density fluctuations of the early universe.

4) Exactly correct theoretical and observed values of the amount of Hydrogen and Helium isotopes in the visible universe.

The one aspect of the Big Bang Theory which is a problem today is- lithium. When we count up the lithium atoms held in stars, there is only one-third as much of the lithium-7 isotope as there should be. Another isotope, lithium-6, is overabundant: there may be as much as 1000 times too much of it. Evidently, this is a problem. However, I do wonder whether these scientists are so clever that they get stuck on complex equations and haven't taken into account dilithium crystals or the possibility that large reserves of lithium could exist in galaxies further than the current visible universe boundary!

The trouble I have with the BBT as a theory to explain the Red Shift is that saying the amount of energy-less space in a system is growing, while the space containing energy remains constant, is no better a solution to the conservation of energy problem than simply allowing energy to flow out of the system. At the very least, the pressure of the system would be in decline, which is a form of energy.

I just can't take seriously a scientific theory that requires something from outside the system to act on the system in order for it to work. New space appearing out of nowhere is right up there with the "God did it" theory on the list of non-starters. (It's also interesting to note that both of these theories have large followings. I wonder why that is?)

Originally Posted by kojax

The trouble I have with the BBT as a theory to explain the Red Shift is that saying the amount of energy-less space in a system is growing, while the space containing energy remains constant

If I could just stop you right there...

(Why? Well, I just wanted you to stop!)

Do you have a source for your claim that BBT says the amount of "energy-less space" is growing, whilst the space containing energy is constant? I have never heard of space being separated like this before.

Is this perhaps your own conception, gained through a misunderstanding?

Originally Posted by kojax

New space appearing out of nowhere is right up there with the "God did it" theory on the list of non-starters. (It's also interesting to note that both of these theories have large followings. I wonder why that is?)

Well in that case, the whole BBT must be right up there with "God did it", as we have no explanation for how a whole universe can appear "out of nowhere", let alone the space within it. It is interesting to note how a lot of people require evidence before they accept something, whilst some other people can accept something with no evidence, only blind faith.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by kojax

The trouble I have with the BBT as a theory to explain the Red Shift is that saying the amount of energy-less space in a system is growing, while the space containing energy remains constant

If I could just stop you right there...

(Why? Well, I just wanted you to stop!)

Do you have a source for your claim that BBT says the amount of "energy-less space" is growing, whilst the space containing energy is constant? I have never heard of space being separated like this before.

Is this perhaps your own conception, gained through a misunderstanding?

The theory that proposes new matter emerging as the universe expands is the Steady State Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

Maybe some variation of Dark Energy might align with the idea of matter/energy increasing to keep up with the newly arriving space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

However, if new energy is observed to be entering the universe in amounts that would be sufficient to balance against an expansion that saps the energy out of a light wave (by red shifting it to a lower frequency), then....... why not just argue that the energy from the light waves is being transduced into a new form?

Originally Posted by kojax

New space appearing out of nowhere is right up there with the "God did it" theory on the list of non-starters. (It's also interesting to note that both of these theories have large followings. I wonder why that is?)

Well in that case, the whole BBT must be right up there with "God did it", as we have no explanation for how a whole universe can appear "out of nowhere", let alone the space within it. It is interesting to note how a lot of people require evidence before they accept something, whilst some other people can accept something with no evidence, only blind faith.

Yeah, and some people interpret whatever they see to be "evidence", even if it contradicts their perspective.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by kojax

The trouble I have with the BBT as a theory to explain the Red Shift is that saying the amount of energy-less space in a system is growing, while the space containing energy remains constant

If I could just stop you right there...

(Why? Well, I just wanted you to stop!)

Do you have a source for your claim that BBT says the amount of "energy-less space" is growing, whilst the space containing energy is constant? I have never heard of space being separated like this before.

Is this perhaps your own conception, gained through a misunderstanding?

The theory that proposes new matter emerging as the universe expands is the Steady State Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

The steady state theory of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold was discarded long ago, as cosmology became a science tied to fundamental physics and as observational evidence and understanding of the implications of general relativity mounted.

In short the steady state theory is irrelevant to modern science. There is zero support for creation of matter in space -- it was simply required for this now-discredited theory.

Originally Posted by kojax

Maybe some variation of Dark Energy might align with the idea of matter/energy increasing to keep up with the newly arriving space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

This is absurd. Dark energy is gravitationally repulsive -- assuming that it exists. It has NOTHING to do with creation of any sort of ordinary matter in space or anywhere else.

Originally Posted by kojax

However, if new energy is observed to be entering the universe in amounts that would be sufficient to balance against an expansion that saps the energy out of a light wave (by red shifting it to a lower frequency), then....... why not just argue that the energy from the light waves is being transduced into a new form?

????????

What have you been smoking ?

Originally Posted by kojax

New space appearing out of nowhere is right up there with the "God did it" theory on the list of non-starters. (It's also interesting to note that both of these theories have large followings. I wonder why that is?)

Originally Posted by Speedfreek

Well in that case, the whole BBT must be right up there with "God did it", as we have no explanation for how a whole universe can appear "out of nowhere", let alone the space within it. It is interesting to note how a lot of people require evidence before they accept something, whilst some other people can accept something with no evidence, only blind faith.

Yeah, and some people interpret whatever they see to be "evidence", even if it contradicts their perspective.

Yeah, you.

On the other hand quite a few real scientists have thoroughly examined a mountain of data from sophisticated and expensive experiments and performed calculations based on general relativity which itself is supported by a mountain of empirical data to formulate the big bang hypothesis. There is still a lot that remains unknown, but none of it is related to any of your statements.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

This is absurd. Dark energy is gravitationally repulsive -- assuming that it exists. It has NOTHING to do with creation of any sort of ordinary matter in space or anywhere else.

That's nto exactly the case. The C-field (responsible for somehow creating energy) of some versions of the Steady State Theory does take the form of a dark energy component.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Originally Posted by DrRocket

This is absurd. Dark energy is gravitationally repulsive -- assuming that it exists. It has NOTHING to do with creation of any sort of ordinary matter in space or anywhere else.

That's nto exactly the case. The C-field (responsible for somehow creating energy) of some versions of the Steady State Theory does take the form of a dark energy component.

That sounds suspiciously like a quote from Wiki.

Based on my reading of Bondi's Cosmology I think differently. Bondi and Gold rejected models based on general relativity in their proposed steady state cosmologies. Hoyle took a different tack. He also postulated that matter was created from nothing in the void of deep space, but sought a mechanistic explanation of expansion based on general relativity, or a simple modification of it. To accommodate both expansion of space and creation of new matter he introduced the "C-field" which is simply a positive cosmological constant (equivalent to a negative pressure as noted by Wiki). But the creation of ordinary matter is not, in Hoyle's model, the source of "dark energy", but rather an equivalent to dark energy which is required to provide a mechanism for expanding space (an observed fact by the time the models were proposed) and to compensate for the creation of matter so that the universe maintains a constant density of matter making the state "steady".

In any case none of the steady-state models are viable explanations for the observed acceleration of the expansion of space. They are all contrived so that the universe presents an unchanging nature on the largest scales, immutable over all time. That is completely inconsistent with an accelerating rate of expansion.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

That sounds suspiciously like a quote from Wiki.

It's not. You can find more details in John Earman, "Lambda: The Constant That Refuses to Die", Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Volume 55, Number 3, 189-220, DOI: 10.1007/s004070000025


http://www.springerlink.com/content/uc1h06xd2wl4cgrv/


John Earman

But the creation of ordinary matter is not, in Hoyle's model, the source of "dark energy", but rather an equivalent to dark energy which is required to provide a mechanism for expanding space (an observed fact by the time the models were proposed) and to compensate for the creation of matter so that the universe maintains a constant density of matter making the state "steady".

That hair splitting doesn't really count in favour of the statement, "It has NOTHING to do with creation of any sort of ordinary matter in space or anywhere else."

In any case none of the steady-state models are viable explanations for the observed acceleration of the expansion of space.

No question there.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

[

But the creation of ordinary matter is not, in Hoyle's model, the source of "dark energy", but rather an equivalent to dark energy which is required to provide a mechanism for expanding space (an observed fact by the time the models were proposed) and to compensate for the creation of matter so that the universe maintains a constant density of matter making the state "steady".

That hair splitting doesn't really count in favour of the statement, "It has NOTHING to do with creation of any sort of ordinary matter in space or anywhere else."

It is the difference between a theory that postulates that space is expanding and simultaneously maintaining a constant density of ordinary matter, necessitating a positive cosmological constant to propel the expansion against the ever-increasing mass of the universe, and proposing that the matter being created according to the initial postulate is in fact dark energy. In Hoyle's theory the cosmological constant was basically a kluge to make a bad hypothesis (creation of ordinary matter in the void) not lead to an obvious contradiction. It was fundamentally a repeat of Einstein's "biggest blunder" based on similar rationale. The recent resurrection, based on empirical data has a much better foundation, but is still speculative.

I don't consider that hair-splitting. Quite the contrary.

You are certainly free to feel as you please about it. It is not worth a protracted debate.

There may have been merit in Hoyle's idea in the 1950's, but subsequent increase in our depth of understanding has rendered it irrelevant now. Resurrecting it in the context of the dark energy mystery is counter-productive. It has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by kojax

The trouble I have with the BBT as a theory to explain the Red Shift is that saying the amount of energy-less space in a system is growing, while the space containing energy remains constant

If I could just stop you right there...

(Why? Well, I just wanted you to stop!)

Do you have a source for your claim that BBT says the amount of "energy-less space" is growing, whilst the space containing energy is constant? I have never heard of space being separated like this before.

Is this perhaps your own conception, gained through a misunderstanding?

The theory that proposes new matter emerging as the universe expands is the Steady State Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

The steady state theory of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold was discarded long ago, as cosmology became a science tied to fundamental physics and as observational evidence and understanding of the implications of general relativity mounted.

In short the steady state theory is irrelevant to modern science. There is zero support for creation of matter in space -- it was simply required for this now-discredited theory.

You do realize that I only brought those things up to point out that the formation of new matter/energy is *not* suggested in the current BBT, don't you?

The Steady State theory suggested it, and if you really wanted to interpret DE that way..... anyway...... that's as close as the BBT comes to allowing new energy to enter space.

My objection to the theory, which Speed Freak was questioning me about, is that new space enters the picture, but new matter/energy doesn't, which means the energy/mass density of the universe is always a decreasing value. Pressure is usually considered a form of energy storage, so relieving pressure should be viewed as violating the principle of conservation of energy.

Originally Posted by kojax

so relieving pressure should be viewed as violating the principle of conservation of energy.

Conservation of energy, except at a point, is problematic in GR anyway. It is not even clear what it means given that there is no concept of a global reference frame or global time. Moreover, gravitational energy is ellusive in GR.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...energy_gr.html

This article is interesting

http://news.discovery.com/space/no-t...t-quasars.html

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1004.1824

Apparently Quasars from much further away (with greater red shifts) were found to blink at the same rate as quasars from nearby, not accounting for the expected time dilation. (If time dilation is accounted for, then the ones further away would have been blinking faster on average.)

That could be taken as evidence that the red shift is not caused by expansion.

Later results with a larger sample do not support the finding.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5386

Alright, reading through that I have to admit that is over my head. I don't know what half the terms they're using mean. Is "variability" the same in their usage as "light curve" in the paper I cited?

The paper I was citing compared the light curves of quasars against the degree of red shift. I understood that to mean they were discussing how long it takes the quasar to move from one extreme to the other.

I was going to make a post about how a good test for the BBT would be to find an event that occurs with a known time interval, which can be observed in distant space, and see if it appears to transpire more slowly at large distances where the light we receive from it is red shifted to a greater degree. If the red shift is caused by recession, then the signal sent by each progressing moment of an event that transpires over time should be traveling a longer distance than the last signal. IE. if a clock sends a signal every time a minute has passed, and the clock is moving away from us, then the signal it sends after 1 minute has passed will have traveled a shorter distance by the time it reaches us than the signal it sends after 2 minutes have passed because the clock was further away when it sent the 2nd signal. And so the clock should appear to be ticking more slowly.

If the paper you are citing was talking about that, then I shall attempt a few more times to read and understand it, perhaps after I am able to locate a really good "science glossary" or "science dictionary" so I can look up words as I encounter them.

Originally Posted by kojax

Alright, reading through that I have to admit that is over my head. I don't know what half the terms they're using mean. Is "variability" the same in their usage as "light curve" in the paper I cited?

The paper I was citing compared the light curves of quasars against the degree of red shift. I understood that to mean they were discussing how long it takes the quasar to move from one extreme to the other.

I was going to make a post about how a good test for the BBT would be to find an event that occurs with a known time interval, which can be observed in distant space, and see if it appears to transpire more slowly at large distances where the light we receive from it is red shifted to a greater degree. If the red shift is caused by recession, then the signal sent by each progressing moment of an event that transpires over time should be traveling a longer distance than the last signal. IE. if a clock sends a signal every time a minute has passed, and the clock is moving away from us, then the signal it sends after 1 minute has passed will have traveled a shorter distance by the time it reaches us than the signal it sends after 2 minutes have passed because the clock was further away when it sent the 2nd signal. And so the clock should appear to be ticking more slowly.

If the paper you are citing was talking about that, then I shall attempt a few more times to read and understand it, perhaps after I am able to locate a really good "science glossary" or "science dictionary" so I can look up words as I encounter them.

There are exactly such signals; supernovea. The physical process is the same no matter (haha) where it occurs; the half life if the nickel-56 that creates the light is fuxed, and the larger the red shift, the longer it appears to take from our distance, exactly as expected.

Thanks! That's exactly the kind of test I was hoping to find information on. Though... admittedly... I had been hoping its conclusions would favor my perspective.


RIP - Tired Light.

.... except.... I should also ask for a source. I've been looking for a source to substantiate this claim about supernovae at high red shift being observed to take the same amount of time to react as at low redshift, but I'm not finding anything.

Apparently it is rare for anyone to successfully observe a supernova event from start to finish, at any distance, let alone one that occurs a very long distance away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...000_to_present

Originally Posted by kojax

Alright, reading through that I have to admit that is over my head. I don't know what half the terms they're using mean. Is "variability" the same in their usage as "light curve" in the paper I cited?

The paper I was citing compared the light curves of quasars against the degree of red shift. I understood that to mean they were discussing how long it takes the quasar to move from one extreme to the other.

Well, the paper you cited did that, sort of. The problem is that Hawkins didin't know the rest-frame rate of variability. He thought that he could remove all time dilation and then recover the same average rest-frame variability in two samples separated by significant red-shift.

"The main purpose of this paper is to compare time-scales of variation in low- and high-redshift samples of quasars." (page 2/1941 of the arxiv document).

There are a number of reasons as to why this wouldn't work out. One reason is that there might be, as the second paper discovered, a correlation between the intrinsic variability of a quasar and its luminosity. If this is the case, then more distant quasars will tend to skew to a certain class of variability because we are more and more likely to see only the brighter quasars the farther away we look.

I was going to make a post about how a good test for the BBT would be to find an event that occurs with a known time interval, which can be observed in distant space, and see if it appears to transpire more slowly at large distances where the light we receive from it is red shifted to a greater degree.

Indeed. A great example of this is Goldhaber et al., 2001, ApJ, 558, 359.

If the paper you are citing was talking about that, then I shall attempt a few more times to read and understand it, perhaps after I am able to locate a really good "science glossary" or "science dictionary" so I can look up words as I encounter them.

The second paper is not what I would call friendly to readers outside of astronomy or a related field.

That's pretty good.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382

Originally Posted by Section 4

Using supernova light curves to test the cosmological expansion was first suggested by Wilson (1939) (see also Rust (1974)). Over the last decade it has become clear that Type Ia SNe, found nearby and at cosmological distances, provide superb and precise clocks for such tests. ...

More recently, Riess et al.
(1997) showed evidence that the spectral features of Type Ia SNe can be timed sufficiently well to measure the time interval between two spectra taken 10 days apart in the observer system. Applying this method to one supernova gave results consistent with 1+z light-curve broadening at the 96.4% confidence level. With the current dataset, we can now demonstrate the light-curve broadening with a larger, statistically significant sample.

It looks like it provides all the nails for the coffin on that question.

It's also interesting to see that there are "standard clocks" as well as "standard candles" at those distances.

Quiet frankly, how can you prove anything to be absolutely true when our own Galaxy (from what we can measure) is 100 million light years across. At this point in our technological advancement I think it is difficult to say the light from the far reaches of the Universe are signaling to a big bang theory when we have yet to even completely explore our own solar system. I take any theory with a grain of salt and I simply admire the idea but unless, as you stated, there is more facts and less speculations, i would not label it a strong possibility.

Advertising link deleted.
Dishmaster (Moderator)

That is true, but in this case the astronomers in question used a really strong statistical approach. They started by identifying a specific type of supernova that is consistently observed to follow a similar pattern in nearby space. Then they looked at similar supernovae in deep space. Of course the pattern could prove to be a false pattern, but the likelihood of that is very small after they've already observed it bear out enough times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia...va#Light_curve

I love Big Bang Denial, but I can't press on in the face of genuine evidence. That would not be scientific.

Originally Posted by Xfinity

Quiet frankly, how can you prove anything to be absolutely true when our own Galaxy (from what we can measure) is 100 million light years across.

Quite frankly why should I entertain the opinions of a member who enlarges the size of our galaxy by a factor of 1,000?

Quite frankly why should I entertain the opinions of a member who does not understand that science is not in the business of proving things to be absolutely true?

At this point in our technological advancement I think it is difficult to say the light from the far reaches of the Universe are signaling to a big bang theory when we have yet to even completely explore our own solar system.

That's just silly. I might as well say, how can we possibly say that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was an important event in the development of the Vietnam war, when we cannot adequately discern the role the French aristocracy played in the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie. You are looking at two essentially unrelated subjects.

I take any theory with a grain of salt and I simply admire the idea but unless, as you stated, there is more facts and less speculations, i would not label it a strong possibility.

Do you think there is any stronger possibility? Do you think there is any other plausible possibility? If not, then surely that leaves the Big Bang as the strongest option?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I take any theory with a grain of salt and I simply admire the idea but unless, as you stated, there is more facts and less speculations, i would not label it a strong possibility.

Do you think there is any stronger possibility? Do you think there is any other plausible possibility? If not, then surely that leaves the Big Bang as the strongest option?

I keep seeing this false dichotomy come up that says one must either A) - Adhere to the existing theory and stop looking for alternatives. or B) - Embrace one of the other existing theories, and ..... stop looking for alternatives.

What about C) - Look for an alternative? (Which means you must at least partially reject all existing theories, or.... why would you waste your time?)

Originally Posted by kojax

I keep seeing this false dichotomy come up that says one must either A) - Adhere to the existing theory and stop looking for alternatives. or B) - Embrace one of the other existing theories, and ..... stop looking for alternatives.

Perhaps you keep seeing false dichotomies because you keep generating them. Just because we designate something as a strong possibility gives zero reason to stop looking for alternatives. Indeed, a 'believer' in the strong possibility will pursue these alternatives hoping to prove them non-viable.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by kojax

I keep seeing this false dichotomy come up that says one must either A) - Adhere to the existing theory and stop looking for alternatives. or B) - Embrace one of the other existing theories, and ..... stop looking for alternatives.

Perhaps you keep seeing false dichotomies because you keep generating them. Just because we designate something as a strong possibility gives zero reason to stop looking for alternatives. Indeed, a 'believer' in the strong possibility will pursue these alternatives hoping to prove them non-viable.

If that were true, the crackpots would be seen as contributing to the body of science by offering failed alternative theories for those 'believers' to disprove.

It's not a question of believers not pursuing alternatives. I'm sure they pursue all the ones they have, but they won't be generating new alternatives. Necessity is the mother of invention. It takes a lot of effort to devise a new theory from first principles. Why would someone who was confident in the existing model exert that effort? Wouldn't they need to believe the effort had a chance of yielding success?

Originally Posted by kojax

It's not a question of believers not pursuing alternatives. I'm sure they pursue all the ones they have, but they won't be generating new alternatives. Necessity is the mother of invention. It takes a lot of effort to devise a new theory from first principles. Why would someone who was confident in the existing model exert that effort? Wouldn't they need to believe the effort had a chance of yielding success?

Science is not a matter of "belief". It is not religion and there is inviolate dogma.

On the other hand a legitimate scientist knows why existing theory is accepted -- knows what the empirical and theoretical evidence is -- and does not tilt at windmills and ignore the data. Rather he knows where the limitations of the existing theory lie an attempts to revise and extend the theory to eliminate those limitations. The revision may be philosophically revolutionary, but it must also conform to the correspondence principle.

There are limitations to the big bang theory. There are responsible speculative attempts to construct alternate theories -- by scientists who recognize the basic "truth" of general relativity and the big bang.

Take, for instance Roger Penrose. His work with Hawking established the necessity of the big bang from general relativity, yet he is now looking at cyclic theories -- noting that the current model does not extend to times earlier than 10^-33 sec.

Or take for instance Paul Steinhardt, one of the architects of the inflationary theory who is now, with Neil Turok, pursuing a cyclic model based on M theory.
Your implied criticism of scientists as closed minded "believers" is WAY off the mark.

But there is a huge difference between a responsible theorist and the typical science forum nut job who attacks current models with no understanding of what he is attacking or the basis for it.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Or take for instance Paul Steinhardt, one of the architects of the inflationary theory who is now, with Neil Turok, pursuing a cyclic model based on M theory.
Your implied criticism of scientists as closed minded "believers" is WAY off the mark.

.

I hope you wouldn't interpret what I said as a criticism of the scientific community. It was a criticism of the poster's comment, nothing more.

I just get frustrated when posters suggest that the BBT (or any other theory) must be accepted by default if there is no other credible alternative currently on the table. The scientists you are describing clearly have not done that, and I think it's a good thing they haven't. A person who isn't at least slightly unconvinced by the existing theory (or at least unconvinced by some aspect of it) would not do what they are doing. They're choosing from a basket of theories that includes Theory X, instead of just a basket that only includes the BBT (in its present form) and it's known alternatives.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Or take for instance Paul Steinhardt, one of the architects of the inflationary theory who is now, with Neil Turok, pursuing a cyclic model based on M theory.
Your implied criticism of scientists as closed minded "believers" is WAY off the mark.

.

I hope you wouldn't interpret what I said as a criticism of the scientific community. It was a criticism of the poster's comment, nothing more.

I just get frustrated when posters suggest that the BBT (or any other theory) must be accepted by default if there is no other credible alternative currently on the table. The scientists you are describing clearly have not done that, and I think it's a good thing they haven't. A person who isn't at least slightly unconvinced by the existing theory (or at least unconvinced by some aspect of it) would not do what they are doing. They're choosing from a basket of theories that includes Theory X, instead of just a basket that only includes the BBT (in its present form) and it's known alternatives.

No.

The BBT in its present form is solid.

The confusion arises over what "its present form" means. It is very clear that the universe was extremely dense with extreme curvature about 13.7 billion years ago. Prior to that things are speculative.

Inflation explains a lot, but there are some significant gaps too. Just for starts no one has a clue what the inflation field might be -- Guth originally thought it was the Higgs field, but that is now known to be wrong, even if the Higgs exists.

ANY viable theory will have to reflect the big bang from t=10^-33 sec to the present. ALL of the proposed speculative theories do this.

The issue is not that the existing theory is unconvincing. The issue is that it is incomplete. A complete theory will very likely require a deeper understanding of the foundations of physics -- general relativity and quantum theories -- than what we have now. The big bang and black holes offer test cases for theories attempting to unify gravitation and quantum theories.

One major problem is that a bunch of physicists have written popularizations that present speculation as fact or near fact. There is just WAY too much bullshit in the popular literature.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

The issue is not that the existing theory is unconvincing. The issue is that it is incomplete. A complete theory will very likely require a deeper understanding of the foundations of physics -- general relativity and quantum theories -- than what we have now. The big bang and black holes offer test cases for theories attempting to unify gravitation and quantum theories.

I think an alternative theory would require the same thing. Some part of the laws of physics would have to be different than we think they are, or vary with scale in an unexpected way.

Under the currently understood laws, expansion is pretty much an inescapable conclusion. I think the main reason I prefer to suspend believe in the BBT is because if those laws are incomplete, I would not want to remain ignorant of what the real laws are.

The heliocentric solar system had to wait for Johannes Kepler to come up with a set of laws that would predictively describe the planets' elliptical orbits. Until then, the Ptolemaic model, however bizarre, was better. I don't see the present moment in history as being much different. Some future generation will probably laugh at us for believing in expansion, but what can we do? It's the only thing that fits observation ....... under the present laws.

[quote="kojax"]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

. Some future generation will probably laugh at us for believing in expansion, but what can we do? It's the only thing that fits observation ....... under the present laws.

Precisely.

Our time here pondering this thing we call the universe is so short in the grand scheme of things, we can't even percieve any change at all....and we never will. We can trust our best minds to theorize just like those before us did but, that's the best we can do.

I believe a big bang is ridiculously oversimplifying something we are incapable of understanding. In our minds there must have been a beginning so, it started with a big bang?

Yeah they'll laugh at us but no more than we laugh at the flat earth at the center in ether folks before us.

Originally Posted by Suspiciousmind

Our time here pondering this thing we call the universe is so short in the grand scheme of things, we can't even perceive any change at all

This is pure nonsense and goes some way to explaining why you have this distorted view of reality.

Because of the universal speed limit we are able to see into the past and therefore change is naked before us. We see back into the early days of the Universe and note the changes that have occured since. As our technology improves the range of what we see, the detail of what we see and the precision of what we see increases.

Originally Posted by Suspiciousmind

I believe a big bang is ridiculously oversimplifying something we are incapable of understanding. In our minds there must have been a beginning so, it started with a big bang?

No. The prior view was of an eternal universe. It was evidence, especially the detection of the cosmic background radiation, that caused a sea change in perception.

I think the big bang and the expansion of the universe needs to be questioned every now and then, because science is not a religion.

Have we got the model of the universe so wrong that we invented dark matter and dark energy purely as a fix for problems with the big bang view of things?

Dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang at all, and dark energy is only peripherally related.

Well the expansion of the universe and big bang theories, do bend the cosmological principal a bit by assuming the expansion of the universe does not effect the viewpoint and therefore no viewpoint correction is required.

What if we are inventing dark matter / energy in amounts that totally swamp normal matter to fix a viewpoint distortion.

I can't imaging any form of distortion that fixes everything, just an example of how we could have got the model badly wrong.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang at all, and dark energy is only peripherally related.

I certainly don't want to sidetrack this discussion from....whatever, but I do have a question about your above quoted statement MW.

Is it currently thought that dark matter was not created in the big bang as was "normal" baryonic matter?

As I understand it, the Lambda-CDM model of the universe provides an explanation for baryogenesis (ie "normal" baryonic matter). I think it's silent on the subject of dark matter.

Is this simply because we don't even know what dark matter is yet, or are there reasons to believe that the creation of dark matter was definitely not part of the big bang process?

Chris

One has to be careful about what the "big bang process" is. The current standard cosmological model is usually referred to as the big bang model, but it doesn't include the creation of all matter. It does include the creation of a neutrino background radiation, a photon background radiation, and the balance of baryons (and electrons) in the universe out of pre-existing material pf other kinds. Before that it gets rather fuzzy and that's where the creation of dark matter would have to be.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

One has to be careful about what the "big bang process" is. The current standard cosmological model is usually referred to as the big bang model, but it doesn't include the creation of all matter. It does include the creation of a neutrino background radiation, a photon background radiation, and the balance of baryons (and electrons) in the universe out of pre-existing material pf other kinds. Before that it gets rather fuzzy and that's where the creation of dark matter would have to be.

Yes.

The fundamental difficulty, beyond the inability of the model to extend back to t=0 (a profound difficulty in and of itself), is that the model is in turn based on the Standard Model of particle physics. This should be no surprise, as the Standard Model, warts and all, is the best available theory.

It is a bit difficult to apply the Standard model to "dark matter" since we have no idea what "dark matter" is (if it is) except that it does not appear to correspond to any of the particles of the Standard Model. There is some thought that it may be some supersymmetric particle, but there is thus far not a hint of supersymmetry in any experimental data.

It would be really nice if otherwise legitimate physicists quit writing books presenting rank speculation as established science -- starting with string theorists. Perhaps the introduction of the phrase "I don't know" into the popular literature would help. That would reduce page count and render Michio Kaku (and others) nearly mute.

For a while I have been writing a science fiction book, where aliens discredit our scientist by saying they have it all wrong and the universe is not expanding...
The problem is when I came to write the bit where the aliens are proved wrong, the argument I have in my notes is broken.
Could someone please point me at the key bit that breaks the changes in the fine structure constant argument, because I seem to have gone around the side of the issue a bit as described in Wikipedia.
My version of things probably has stupid massive problems elsewhere, but it looks like it might not change the stability of atoms in the past.

Is this what you're talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure


If I understand this concept right, then what it's saying is that, since most EM radiation is caused by the motion of electrons, and that motion can be complicated by relativistic effects if the electron is moving at relativistic speeds relative to the observer, then we have to take that into account when measuring an object's red-shift.

So, what is the fine structure argument? Is it favorable or unfavorable to the BBT? I would assume that fine structure can be ignored when taking a BBT calculation because the motion of distant objects due to expansion is not considered to be due to an actual difference in velocity, so it doesn't invoke special relativity (otherwise some objects would be moving away from us faster than C).

It is an old big bang alternative with the fine structure cconstant changing over time causing the the electromagnetic force to change over time.
The result being matter shrinks over time causing ancient light to look longer wavelength than expected ie a redshift.

But it fails badly by making some types of atom unstable in the past, that can be seen to exist back then.
But I can't find the reference to this now on Wikipedia, to see if my version works better.


(sorry if above does not make much sense as 3 AM on the iPad)
I put my version up on scienceforum.com in alliterative theroies, if no one blows big holes in it I will post it on this site.

I have put my alternative to the bigbang that I use in my Sci-Fi in New Hypotheses and Ideas
Under the name Condensing Universe

Please break it

Originally Posted by CSMYTH3025

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Dark matter has nothing to do with the big bang at all, and dark energy is only peripherally related.

I certainly don't want to sidetrack this discussion from....whatever, but I do have a question about your above quoted statement MW.

Is it currently thought that dark matter was not created in the big bang as was "normal" baryonic matter?

As I understand it, the Lambda-CDM model of the universe provides an explanation for baryogenesis (ie "normal" baryonic matter). I think it's silent on the subject of dark matter.

Is this simply because we don't even know what dark matter is yet, or are there reasons to believe that the creation of dark matter was definitely not part of the big bang process?

Chris

If I understand the matter correctly, "Dark Matter" is a key ingredient in the formation of primordial structures in the early universe, when it was still opaque. The idea is that because of its weak or non-existent interaction via electro-magnetism it only interacted gravitationally with the tiny fluctuations of the ionised universe. This produced the gravitational wells in which the baryonic matter could gather after it became neutral. Since we don't know if it really exists, and if it does, what it actually could be, it is difficult to speculate, how it actually formed. The concepts of supersymmetry or supergravity might be able to give an answer.

I took this from the interesting book "The Dark Matter Problem" by Robert H. Sanders.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

If I understand the matter correctly, "Dark Matter" is a key ingredient in the formation of primordial structures in the early universe, when it was still opaque. The idea is that because of its weak or non-existent interaction via electro-magnetism it only interacted gravitationally with the tiny fluctuations of the ionised universe. This produced the gravitational wells in which the baryonic matter could gather after it became neutral. Since we don't know if it really exists, and if it does, what it actually could be, it is difficult to speculate, how it actually formed. The concepts of supersymmetry or supergravity might be able to give an answer.

I took this from the interesting book "The Dark Matter Problem" by Robert H. Sanders.

In this context is "primordial structures" objects the size of galactic clusters etc first, or should I bethinking about structures at all scales forming at the same time?