# Thread: Alternative / new big bang theory

1. Hi All
I was just thinking about the big bang theory, then had a thought that I wanted to share. I am not a physicist though did do a degree in physics quite some years ago.
I believe the big bang theory is based on the observations from the Hubble space telescope that the universe is expanding. Given that when we look at the stars their light takes a very long time to get to us, the farther away the stars are from the Earth the further back in history we are going.
However, the part of the theory that does not really make sense is that there was a singularity.
Although the 'maths' would appear to work up until just after t = 0 astrophysicists and mathematicians fail in this regard. I have seen science websites saying that the universe started from the size of a pin head. This to me is not plausible !
Just from the perspective of all space (yes everything) fitting into such a small area it is surely impossible.

The classic argument from the astrophysicists is that 'you can't use normal intuition, or mathematical and physical laws breaks down' - this does not wash for me. Science needs to make the layman understand - if they cannot then have a rethink.

I do not believe that ALL matter could ever have been compressed into such a tiny area.

Rather I think it more likely that there was a universe before ours (think of a balloon), now this baloon is physically joined linked to another baloon i.e. the second universe (joined at the place where we would normally blow into). All that has happened is the transfer of matter = energy from one universe to the other (i.e. ours), ours initially being empty of matter. The other universe i.e. our universe's twin is deflating and this makes ours expand. When our universe has reached its limit of expansion I suggest it will stop expanding as both universes will be of equal size. This is demonstration of action and reaction. It also gets rid of the singularity problem. How ? Well because matter was never compressed into a pin head, it was passing through the pin head, into the twin universe.
I don't think there are multiverses as there is no need for them, but there are 2 universes, linked together. (by the way I am using a 2 conjoined balloons model only to help visualise).
Or we could see it as 2 parts to the same universe, linked together.

Again, I am not working as a scientist, just interested in it. Let me know what you think.

2.

3. You could be right, but unfortunately when we try to apply the laws of physics to t=0, we find a singularity in the way and cannot take those laws any further.

4. Originally Posted by Sabman
Hi All
I was just thinking about the big bang theory, then had a thought that I wanted to share. I am not a physicist though did do a degree in physics quite some years ago.
I believe the big bang theory is based on the observations from the Hubble space telescope that the universe is expanding.
It's based only in part on the observation by Hubble. Much, much, much more is involved (stellar nucleosynthesis, etc., etc.).

Given that when we look at the stars their light takes a very long time to get to us, the farther away the stars are from the Earth the further back in history we are going.
However, the part of the theory that does not really make sense is that there was a singularity.
The singularity is not actually a part of big bang theory. You have been misled by the countless popularizations of science. It's a lot sexier to claim that the theory explains origins than to be honest and say that the big bang theory is actually a theory of evolution, not creation.

Although the 'maths' would appear to work up until just after t = 0 astrophysicists and mathematicians fail in this regard. I have seen science websites saying that the universe started from the size of a pin head. This to me is not plausible !
Careful. You are now essentially claiming that physics should conform to your personal intuitive sense. Think critically: Why should that be so?

Just from the perspective of all space (yes everything) fitting into such a small area it is surely impossible.
Again, you have not demonstrated at all that such a thing is "surely impossible." All you have demonstrated is that you don't believe it. Don't conflate these two things.

The classic argument from the astrophysicists is that 'you can't use normal intuition, or mathematical and physical laws breaks down' - this does not wash for me. Science needs to make the layman understand - if they cannot then have a rethink.
That's a dangerous -- and ultimately anti-scientific -- stance to take. You are implicitly assuming that science should be understandable to the layman. Why should that assumption be true? My squirrels will never learn integral calculus. Is that a failure of mathematics? Of mathematicians? Or is it a reflection of their limited mental endowment?

What's so special about human brains -- lay or scientific -- that all science should be understandable?

I do not believe that ALL matter could ever have been compressed into such a tiny area.
Tough. The universe does not give a hang about what you believe. Nor should science. We have to go with evidence. And the evidence says that the best explanation is that the universe was much, much smaller in the past than it is now.

Again, I am not working as a scientist, just interested in it. Let me know what you think.
I think that you need to study up on the scientific method, and on the vast amount of evidence that has accumulated in favor of the big bang theory. You are too quick to dismiss ideas just because you personally don't like them. That's more akin to religion, rather than science.

5. I think its perfectly reasonable and logical to ask how so much matter could possibly fit into such a tiny area. You have not sufficiently answered this. All you have basically said is that because there are a number of scientists who believe this then I should believe it too. Sounds like faith to me !
Sorry but its not good enough to say why should physics conform to my personal intuitive sense. If its also not your intuitive sense to think how such vast amounts of matter no matter how densely packed could possibly fit into such size, then that is what is odd. I would have thought that's the first question someone would raise !

Not sure what your squirrel has to do with this; its unlikely to learn how to add let alone calculus ! I'm talking about explaining it to people who are not necessarily scientists but nevertheless have the ability to understand complex issues.

Also not sure where you got your info about the singularity. It is absolutely about the big bang ! If we extrapolate the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity it gives an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.This is the singularity and it signals the breakdown of general relativity and the singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but it can also mean the early hot, dense phase itself,which can be considered the "birth" of our universe.
The singularity is not about evolution, it is about the start of the universe !

Also you have not commented on the main part of my discussion which I've done to try to understand how to explain the anomoly above, i.e. by it being matter passing through the singularity rather than being all inside it.

6. Originally Posted by Sabman
All you have basically said is that because there are a number of scientists who believe this then I should believe it too. Sounds like faith to me !
If you want to truly understand what the scientists are saying, you'll need to spend years studying the various disciplines required. This is why we have scientists spending years studying their discipline - so we don't have to.

So, either listen to what the scientists are telling you, or go and formally study the science required.

7. I do not know how far you have developed your cognizance about the big bang...all matter was formed from the first matter just like a chain reaction...a change in the system leads to a chaotic infinite random series of matter,but its infinity i am not sure of.

8. There was no atom,the first atom was formed during the recombination...as far as we know,as the universe expands it cools at some point,and started accelerating at another...we only can tell by the homogenity of the universe that all that there is now,was formed from its kind which was more smaller.

9. Originally Posted by merumario
I do not know how far you have developed your cognizance about the big bang...all matter was formed from the first matter just like a chain reaction...a change in the system leads to a chaotic infinite random series of matter,but its infinity i am not sure of.
First matter? Wasnt the temperature too hot to allow matter to exist? Close to or in the singularity?

10. Think of it as an enormous game of tic tac toe,that one wins,if you keep expanding the board,endless random partterns,mathematical equation will unfold...there is no expression without quantity...back in the miniscule universe,i can suppose that mathematical expression would not make 1/4 of our current once...it explains why it hold that just one force existed then.

11. Originally Posted by Sabman
I think its perfectly reasonable and logical to ask how so much matter could possibly fit into such a tiny area.
Of course it's perfectly reasonable to ask the question. The problem isn't there -- it's with your arbitrary declaration that BBT is wrong just because you can't accept it. And apparently you have done very little actual study of how scientists know what they know.

You have not sufficiently answered this. All you have basically said is that because there are a number of scientists who believe this then I should believe it too. Sounds like faith to me !
Absolutely not. The fact that you would make this additional assertion reveals how little you know about the subject. You are evidently ignorant about all the separate lines of theory and experiment that have converged to produce support for the BBT. It's not a matter of faith because it's based on evidence (lots of it). However, your assertions about BBT are based on nothing more than your own "gut feel" about things. News flash: Your gut is unschooled in science and logic, so it is unreliable. Stop listening to it.

Sorry but its not good enough to say why should physics conform to my personal intuitive sense.
Huh? That's the exact opposite of what I said. Please re-read carefully what I actually wrote. It is you who asserted that physics should conform to your personal intuitive sense. I pointed out that the universe has no obligation to oblige. "It's not about you."

If its also not your intuitive sense to think how such vast amounts of matter no matter how densely packed could possibly fit into such size, then that is what is odd. I would have thought that's the first question someone would raise !
Again, your ignorance is showing. Why do you imagine that no one has asked this question? It is clear that you haven't bothered to do even the most basic research into BBT. The question has not only been raised, but it has been answered. And the answers have been tested. And passed every test so far. That doesn't mean that it's the final answer, but it sure as hell means it's the best we've got. It's certainly a heckuva lot better than the "I don't like what it says, so it must be wrong" attitude you are affecting.

Not sure what your squirrel has to do with this; its unlikely to learn how to add let alone calculus !
That's the whole point. You asserted that science should be understandable to the layman. I brought up the squirrel example to get you thinking about why you ought to question your assertion. Think about it. Maybe you should reread what I wrote. You seem not to read too carefully. Hint: We are the squirrel. No matter how competent and dedicated the teaching, the squirrel will never do integral calculus.

]I'm talking about explaining it to people who are not necessarily scientists but nevertheless have the ability to understand complex issues.
You seem to be shifting dangerously close to the "no true Scotsman" dodge.

That's because you haven't studied cosmology beyond what's presented in popularized versions.

It is absolutely about the big bang ! If we extrapolate the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity it gives an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.This is the singularity and it signals the breakdown of general relativity
You suffer from poor meta-knowledge; you believe you know more than you actually do. Your logical skills need honing, too. Look carefully at what you wrote above: If you have a breakdown in known theory when you extrapolate things, then by definition you have entered a regime where you can't say what is going on! That is why the singularity lies outside of known physics. You yourself have said essentially the same thing above, and you seem not to recognize it!

Let me try a simpler example to illustrate the fallacy in your thinking: Stephen Jay Gould had a wonderful example of the dangers of extrapolation. I don't remember the precise numbers, but a paraphrase will suffice here. He tracked the evolution of the Hershey bar, noting that it shrank in size and varied in price in a certain way over time. Extrapolating historical trends led to the prediction that we'd eventually be paying a dime for a zero-ounce chocolate bar. Just because your current theory extrapolates to some endpoint does not mean that the endpoint exists.

Your faith in the existence of the singularity is not grounded in science. The universe may have begun with one, but no science currently supports that scenario. It is merely one of a great many possibilities. It's a sexy one, so that's why it has gotten so much airtime.

and the singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but it can also mean the early hot, dense phase itself,which can be considered the "birth" of our universe.
The singularity is not about evolution, it is about the start of the universe !
Again, because the singularity lies outside of physics, the big bang theory can only be about evolution.

Also you have not commented on the main part of my discussion which I've done to try to understand how to explain the anomoly above, i.e. by it being matter passing through the singularity rather than being all inside it.
I have no idea what you're trying to say there, which is why I've not commented on it. But if you're asking about the singularity itself, the fact that it lies outside of science means that there's little we can say with any certainty.

12. Originally Posted by Sabman
I think its perfectly reasonable and logical to ask how so much matter could possibly fit into such a tiny area.
You are absolutely right. Don't let you be bullied out of this site.
There is an interesting faq here that will address most of your questions. You don't have to go to small size to encounter some singularities like black hole.
Mainly you will understand the explanation, because most of them are quite simply answered, in near layman's term.
Originally Posted by Sabman
I would have thought that's the first question someone would raise !
I also had that surprise, but you'll discover soon that it is much more efficient to pose as a obstructive science clerk and tell you how heretic you are, that to actually bothering to understanding your question.
But hang on here, because there are a lot of more constructive people that want to use a forum for what it is
If we extrapolate the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity it gives an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.This is the singularity and it signals the breakdown of general relativity and the singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but it can also mean the early hot, dense phase itself,which can be considered the "birth" of our universe. The singularity is not about evolution, it is about the start of the universe !
Kind of, but at the very end of it. BBT also try to describe the 15+Billions year interval. But you are right in saying that the BBT is an extrapolation. This theoretical model can anyway explains some of the actual phenomenon like cosmological background. But it is a theory, and a very weak one. It relies on many mysteries like "inflation" and quantum fluctuation in the original soup (that translate later in clusters of galaxies) and thus is a good subject for endless and recurrent debate

I strongly agree with you that science is only useful if it can be of any help to the layman. Of course he could not understand the complexity of the math involved, but he could understand that the more farther are objects, the more red shifted are the photons... But ultimately BBT will never power a flying car, so the most usefulness *I* see in BBT is to fill forums, papers, and the need for people to have a creation process (and thus a creator)

I would write it bbT, because it was not big, there was no bang, but is is absolutely a Theory.

13. Boing, you cover your poor understanding of BBT by playing the victim role, one being "bullied" by people that have a better grasp of the theory than you do, and promote your misunderstandings rather than try to understand BBT better. Your post was rather unhelpful and I recommend to SabMan that he learns about the theory before listening to your misconceptions.

14. Once again TK421 likes to break down each of my sentences and criticise and not comment on my main comment !
I'll explain again; I'm saying that there IS an anomoly at the supposed t=0 in the the laws of physics/maths break down. The big bang theory also does not say anything about where this sudden burst (not explosion) of energy and mass came from.
What I was saying was that rather than there being a t=0, the singularity can be avoided if rather than supposing all matter and energy began at this singularity out of nothing, that there is a parallel universe connected to ours at a point. We could imagine 2 balloons joined together at the place where you would normally blow up a balloon. After all when explaining the standard model big bang theory a balloon is often used to help visualise. It is described as not being an explosion but an inflation and the creation / expansion of space.
Our universe is expanding with acceleration, it is driven by its twin joined universe's deflation, but at some point let's say it slows down and stops expanding (reaches the balloon's limit).
Our calculations come up with a t=0, at the point where our universe is at minimal size. But this is because the twin universe is at its maximum size. Once it begins to deflate our universe starts to inflate.
This solves the problem of there needing to be high density high temperature at the 'singularity' because there is now no singularity; the laws of physics/maths don't break down because there is no t=0 and there is no need to think of incredible mass at a small point because the mass is simply passing through the point to inflate our universe.
There could be some oscillation but at some time the 2 universes would be of equal size and then there would be no change.

I did a google search and there are a couple of renowned professors who came up with an alternative theory (by the way BBT is not the only one out there though is the most widely accepted at present). They are Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of Cambridge University.
Its not exactly like I've said but there are some similarities; see New Theory Provides Alternative to Big Bang

They describe 2 parallel universes as sheets, which can 'bounce' together to create 'big bangs' and there is no t=0. Their model has a number of 'big bangs' and the sheets become charged, also that a significant part of the other universe could contain dark matter.

16. How does that account for the homogeneity and the isotropy of the universe?

17. Originally Posted by Sabman
Its not exactly like I've said but there are some similarities; see New Theory Provides Alternative to Big Bang
Interesting link, thank you. I have found a more recent article by one of the author himself. I think he share with you (and me) the idea that singularity and had hoc fix must be avoided in good theories.
It is obvious that his thinking is influenced by string theory, with brane and more dimension, but at least it is a theory: testable/falsifiable. I don't recall that gravitational waves detection was part of the Planck satellite missions, but I don't think they have been detected yet.

I like the way his theory get rid of inflationary had hoc fix and how it explain the dark energy.

18. Originally Posted by Sabman
Once again TK421 likes to break down each of my sentences and criticise and not comment on my main comment !
I'll explain again; I'm saying that there IS an anomoly at the supposed t=0 in the the laws of physics/maths break down.
You aren't paying attention, which is why criticism is the only reasonable response. Precisely because the currently known laws of physics do break down at t=0, you cannot use these laws there. Yet you insist on doing so, producing an artificial anomaly that you keep demanding be resolved.

The big bang theory also does not say anything about where this sudden burst (not explosion) of energy and mass came from.
And again, I find it necessary to repeat that the big bang theory is a theory of evolution, not of creation. Repeat this sentence over and over, until you understand the words.

By the way, the energy of the universe may actually be zero. If so, then there is no mystery of where it came from.

What I was saying was that rather than there being a t=0, the singularity can be avoided...(blah blah blah)
Sure. It can also be explained an infinite number of other ways. Since we have no scientific theory of creation, you are free to insert your own literary narrative. However, don't mistake it for science. That's all.

Our universe is expanding with acceleration, it is driven by its twin joined universe's deflation...
And the evidential support for this assertion is...?

I did a google search and there are a couple of renowned professors who came up with an alternative theory (by the way BBT is not the only one out there though is the most widely accepted at present). They are Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of Cambridge University.
Its not exactly like I've said but there are some similarities; see New Theory Provides Alternative to Big Bang
As I've already said, there is currently no scientific theory of origins (see footnote). That doesn't mean scientists haven't tried to come up with one. Indeed, there are many published ideas. However, without evidence, these suppositions remain outside of science at present. I could say that pink unicorns did it. There is as much evidence to support that statement as there is to support other creation ideas at present. Maddening, but true.

They describe 2 parallel universes as sheets, which can 'bounce' together to create 'big bangs' and there is no t=0. Their model has a number of 'big bangs' and the sheets become charged, also that a significant part of the other universe could contain dark matter.
Yup. Big brains have been working hard on big branes.

footnote: No published theory of origins is currently testable, to my knowledge. The energies needed are so many orders of magnitude beyond anything we can practically manipulate that these may be an example of something that is in principle falsifiable, but is not, for all practical purposes.

19. I would like to point something out here.

If we ever find a way to test theories of what came before t=0 (the singularity we call the Big-Bang), that will not change any of the science that tells us how the universe evolved since the Big-Bang.

This is known as the correspondence principle in science. Any new theory has to agree with what we already know, when applied to circumstances we already know to conform to current theory.

The same was true when Einstein came up with a better, more comprehensive theory of gravity than Newton. He didn't prove Newton wrong, he just produced a theory that was more accurate than Newtons in certain conditions where Newtons theory failed.

We still use Newtonian gravity to do most of our calculations, because although it is an approximation, it is accurate enough for most problems.

So, there will be no new theory that ever disproves that the universe has expanded from a hot dense state to a cooler less dense state. There will be no new theory that shows that there wasn't a time when the conditions in the universe were so hot that atoms could not form (Big-Bang nucleosynthesis) and that resulted in the cosmic microwave background.

Whilst we might find a way to look back past the Big-Bang, this new theory will not conflict with anything that the current cosmology tells us happened since the Big-Bang. We might find a new name for that event (whatever its nature) but it will not change the fact that universe expanded from a state that was so hot that atoms could only form later on. It will not change the fact that at one time there were no galaxies. It will not change the fact that clusters of galaxies have become more distant from each other since they formed...

20. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
If we ever find a way to test theories of what came before t=0 (the singularity we call the Big-Bang), that will not change any of the science that tells us how the universe evolved since the Big-Bang.
Of course it will. It will add so much to the understanding of how nature works, that previous theories will be regard like they should, old funny tool not worth a penny.
I doubt that you still use Copernicus paradigm with circle on circle to explain planet orbits. It was top-notch at its time, it is just risible today (2 or 3 paradigm later)
Truth is while science exist science will change

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
This is known as the correspondence principle in science. Any new theory has to agree with what we already know, when applied to circumstances we already know to conform to current theory.
There is no need to summon a "principle" to state so blatantly obvious thing. It is even very badly formulated.
A theory must agree with all experiment. Period. And to be a theory you need a complete formulation, there is none for BBT.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
The same was true when Einstein came up with a better, more comprehensive theory of gravity than Newton. He didn't prove Newton wrong, he just produced a theory that was more accurate than Newtons in certain conditions where Newtons theory failed.
So he proved Newton inaccurate, and thus scientifically incorrect. I call that being wrong. I think Sir Isaac would have been delighted at this though, it would have trigger new curiosity and passion in him.
I still don't understand people so proud of gloating about theories much less impressive and factually more wrong. The only thing bothering Newton was "action at distance", it was indeed a leap of faith. Just one.
BBT needs magical inflation, and do not fit with the accelerating of the expansion. That's two.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
We still use Newtonian gravity to do most of our calculations, because although it is an approximation, it is accurate enough for most problems.
And I still just use my instinct to throw a snow ball in earth gravity field. It is accurate enough. What is your point again ?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
So, there will be no new theory that ever disproves that the universe has expanded from a hot dense state to a cooler less dense state. There will be no new theory that shows that there wasn't a time when the conditions in the universe were so hot that atoms could not form (Big-Bang nucleosynthesis) and that resulted in the cosmic microwave background.
OM(ne**)G, now you know the future of both observation that will be made, and the n'th new paradigm that science will go trough ?

BTW, nucleosynthesis is not real, it is a name in a theory. Another bad one (the String theory)tell us that nucleus, and other "observed" particle, are just emergent properties of mysterious string/brane vibrating in whatever number of dimensions.

Do you seriously think that human won't be able to invent much better coherent theory to fit with the facts ? I'll give you a clue: they are all looking for many.

21. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by Sabman
Its not exactly like I've said but there are some similarities; see New Theory Provides Alternative to Big Bang
Interesting link, thank you. I have found a more recent article by one of the author himself. I think he share with you (and me) the idea that singularity and had hoc fix must be avoided in good theories.
It is obvious that his thinking is influenced by string theory, with brane and more dimension, but at least it is a theory: testable/falsifiable. I don't recall that gravitational waves detection was part of the Planck satellite missions, but I don't think they have been detected yet.

I like the way his theory get rid of inflationary had hoc fix and how it explain the dark energy.
Just a minor correction:

22. All I am saying is that no new theory will change the fact that the universe has expanded from a hot dense state where atoms hadn't formed yet, to a cooler less dense state where atoms formed, galaxies formed, and those galaxies are receding from each other due to the expansion.

There will be no paradigm change where we discover that the universe is not expanding, and that there was no time when there were no galaxies.

In the end, the current theory will end up as an approximation for what comes later, just as Newtonian gravity is an approximation for GR and is accurate in weak fields.

BTW, we still use Newtonian theory for most space missions, as they will not encounter conditions where General Relativity is required. We used it to go to the moon and back.

Oh, and we have evidence for nucleosynthesis, in the observed low metallicity in distant galaxies, relative to closer galaxies.

23. BTW, nucleosynthesis is not real, it is a name in a theory.

24. Originally Posted by Boing3000
BTW, nucleosynthesis is not real, it is a name in a theory.
What an arrogant, intellectually lazy stance. You ignore evidence, and offer nothing but empty declarations in return.

Let's see your calculations of the ratio of hydrogen to helium, say.

25. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
BTW, we still use Newtonian theory for most space missions, as they will not encounter conditions where General Relativity is required. We used it to go to the moon and back.
Well, we don't use it anymore to go to the moon, that much is for sure, we aren't going there any time soon
I don't think more recent apparatus, like Hubble telescope or any of those high precision beast like Planck satellite do not use relativity for lower (if not obliterate) some of the imprecision in the measures.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Oh, and we have evidence for nucleosynthesis, in the observed low metallicity in distant galaxies, relative to closer galaxies.
All I am saying is that nucleosynthesis is a the theory that describe how nucleon evolves (not counting the recent an anthropic factor).
The fun part is that is has co-evolved with BBT because one requires the others, they cannot really be used separably to confirm each others.

There is no need to think that all this theories, represent "real" things. That is a bad way of doing science, it shut your minds down. For example, no one has suggested that current observation should not be taken into account, Especially not Sabman, nor the theory he dig out.

Nevertheless no-one here is even discussing that theory which has the advantage of being at least as good as BBT, with less ad-hoc fix and no need to use the mind set of a Belgium catholic priest (I have got enough of them ).

26. Originally Posted by Boing3000
For example, no one has suggested that current observation should not be taken into account, Especially not Sabman, nor the theory he dig out.
No, but he seems to think by finding a way around the singularity he is finding an alternative to Big-Bang theory, rather than simply extending it. Extending our cosmology will not invalidate BBT.

Nobody in science is suggesting that the whole universe was actually once contained in a point with zero volume - that is a misconception.

27. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
All I am saying is that no new theory will change the fact that the universe has expanded from a hot dense state where atoms hadn't formed yet, to a cooler less dense state where atoms formed, galaxies formed, and those galaxies are receding from each other due to the expansion.

There will be no paradigm change where we discover that the universe is not expanding, and that there was no time when there were no galaxies.

In the end, the current theory will end up as an approximation for what comes later, just as Newtonian gravity is an approximation for GR and is accurate in weak fields.

BTW, we still use Newtonian theory for most space missions, as they will not encounter conditions where General Relativity is required. We used it to go to the moon and back.

Oh, and we have evidence for nucleosynthesis, in the observed low metallicity in distant galaxies, relative to closer galaxies.
Amen.

28. Originally Posted by tk421
What an arrogant, intellectually lazy stance. You ignore evidence, and offer nothing but empty declarations in return.
lol, two trolls in one shot (you and Alex):

I know I am lazy just by using words like they should, without imbuing them with the magical power that hard working troll like you love to think they have.

Maybe you should try to learn what science is like 12 year old do. That is the only correct definition of science.
Maybe you should interested yourself into nucleosynthesis, try to wiki it. You'll be amazed by this theory it is a good one.
Spoiler alert, you'll have to begin to think critically (like lazy people's do), and it may hurt your self esteem.

After that re-read this thread from start, learn a little more about BBT and one of its rivals, because some of us here, are not just bags of empty insults.

29. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Amen.
Are you going to turn this thread also into a contest of the most useless full quoting, without any added value ?

30. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Maybe you should interested yourself into nucleosynthesis, try to wiki it. You'll be amazed by this theory it is a good one.
Why do you seem to use the term "theory" in a pejorative sense, underlining it?

Since you refer to wiki:

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

31. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Nobody in science is suggesting that the whole universe was actually once contained in a point with zero volume - that is a misconception.
For sure, that problem is just ignored, so problem solved ! Why not instead getting rid of the singularity ? Do you have read the basics of the alternative theory ? Isn't someone who have worked with Hawkins will be worth reading ? Is there others ? How much credential is needed here ?

32. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Nobody in science is suggesting that the whole universe was actually once contained in a point with zero volume - that is a misconception.
For sure, that problem is just ignored, so problem solved !
No, it is fully acknowledged that the singularity means our theory breaks at that point. Nobody thinks otherwise - except the cranks of course.

Originally Posted by Boing3000
Why not instead getting rid of the singularity ? Do you have read the basics of the alternative theory ? Isn't someone who have worked with Hawkins will be worth reading ?
I have no idea who Hawkins is.

If you mean Stephen Hawking (most cranks can't even get his name right!), I was unaware that anyone has an alternative THEORY yet. Until they do, current THEORY stands.

Seeing as you claim to understand the scientific method, you should know the status required for something to be considered a scientific THEORY. You might want to check out that link I recently posted, to re-acquaint yourself with the concept.

Nobody has an alternative theory. A hypothesis perhaps, but without any method of falsifying it, it cannot be elevated to the status of theory.

33. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Why do you seem to use the term "theory" in a pejorative sense, underlining it?
I am not, you are. That much is for sure. A theory is one of the most powerfull tool. Associating it with BB is degrading it, because BB is not. It is a conjecture.
And before you get me wrong again, conjecture are also good things, unless they are disguised into theory.

34. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Why do you seem to use the term "theory" in a pejorative sense, underlining it?
I am not, you are. That much is for sure. A theory is one of the most powerfull tool. Associating it with BB is degrading it, because BB is not. It is a conjecture.
And before you get me wrong again, conjecture are also good things, unless they are disguised into theory.
BBT is NOT just a conjecture, no matter how much you believe it is. Is this a language barrier thing? If the scientific community sees it as a theory, then it is a theory and is not demoted to mere conjecture because some random guy on the internet says it is. Holding fast to that notion of yours is a trademark of the crackpot.

35. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Why do you seem to use the term "theory" in a pejorative sense, underlining it?
I am not, you are. That much is for sure. A theory is one of the most powerfull tool. Associating it with BB is degrading it, because BB is not. It is a conjecture.
And before you get me wrong again, conjecture are also good things, unless they are disguised into theory.
Utter nonsense, about BBT not being a theory. If it seems that way in your eyes, you aren't looking hard enough.

Evidence for the Big Bang

36. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
If you mean Stephen Hawking (most cranks can't even get his name right!)
lol, is it also a theory ? I doubt it. Or you must be a very competent psychologist, but have not published yet ?
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
I was unaware that anyone has an alternative THEORY yet. Until they do, current THEORY stands.
I don't even think people that are "unaware" are cranks. They may be troll, but the correlation as yet to be asserted by more scientific experiment.

Because you are aware of so much things on BBT, that 2007 paper state that Hawking's (ok untill know?) team is not even able to formulate the theory (the inflation part).
Has it been done since ? What about the acceleration of the expansion ?

37. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Because you are aware of so much things on BBT, that 2007 paper state that Hawking's (ok untill know?) team is not even able to formulate the theory (the inflation part).
What paper? That's a talk, an interview.

38. Ok, here's what's going on.

Big Bang theory is sound, back to the first three seconds. Back to between the recombination era and then, we recreated similar conditions in particle accelerators and the standard model covers the physics involved. Earlier, in the first three seconds, when things like inflation are hypothesised, we have no mechanism for them, only the observation that inflation would be required in order to reproduce a universe with the flatness and homogeneity we see.

We have observational evidence for the acceleration of the expansion, and it acts like a cosmological constant as proposed by Einstein. Again we have no mechanism in current physics to explain this - which is why we call it dark energy. We know it exists, by its affect on the time-dilation of supernovae (which also confirms the overall expansion).

I am not saying we have the whole story. But we know a lot of the story. The universe has expanded from a hot dense state to a cooler less dense state, that much we know.

39. Originally Posted by KALSTER
BBT is NOT just a conjecture, no matter how much you believe it is. Is this a language barrier thing?
I hope not. What is a BB<scientific word> that needs to be fixed with ad-hoc inflation (with not even equations) and later on by 70% of dark energy (don't even bother to ask what it can be (apart a perfect conjecture)).

Please do not hesitate to suggest the the whole scientific community is a block of people marching in line with exactly the same mind-set before answering that question...

40. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by KALSTER
BBT is NOT just a conjecture, no matter how much you believe it is. Is this a language barrier thing?
I hope not. What is a BB<scientific word> that needs to be fixed with ad-hoc inflation (with not even equations) and later on by 70% of dark energy (don't even bother to ask what it can be (apart a perfect conjecture)).
Yes, we know. What is your point? Aren't we allowed to adjust the theory to take new observations into account? Neither of these things change the underlying theory of universal expansion.

41. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by KALSTER
BBT is NOT just a conjecture, no matter how much you believe it is. Is this a language barrier thing?
I hope not. What is a BB<scientific word> that needs to be fixed with ad-hoc inflation (with not even equations) and later on by 70% of dark energy (don't even bother to ask what it can be (apart a perfect conjecture)).

Please do not hesitate to suggest the the whole scientific community is a block of people marching in line with exactly the same mind-set before answering that question...
Einstein's general relativity fails to accurately predict the rotation curves of galaxies. Does that make it not a theory? Your ad hoc standards of what constitutes a theory in order to elevate alternate possibilities to equal footing with BBT is unrealistic and disingenuous.

42. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Ok, here's what's going on.
Big Bang theory is sound
The Big Bang conjecture is sound, on that much we agree.
Sadly, this thread is polluted by people that do not want to discuss other conjectures (more or less sound?). Read the article, the paper, the whatever.
I you do not want to discuss it, then so be it...

43. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Ok, here's what's going on.
Big Bang theory is sound
The Big Bang conjecture is sound, on that much we agree.
Sadly, this thread is polluted by people that do not want to discuss other conjectures (more or less sound?). Read the article, the paper, the whatever.
I you do not want to discuss it, then so be it...
I read it back when it was published. We are waiting for the Planck results, so we might further improve Big-Bang theory, just as the article says. They should be out next year.

44. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Einstein's general relativity fails to accurately predict the rotation curves of galaxies. Does that make it not a theory?
That makes it the best theory of all.
What kind of logic do you use ? I will write it again more slowly the TWO things needed to achieve THEORY standard:
1. A complete/coherent mathematical framework
2. Being falsifiable against experiment (that does not mean being true or false, it mean testable) and it means predicting something NEW.

Now some examples.

Relativity:
1: OK (with cosmological constant)
2: OK (so much ok that we explain so many thing BUT a few (fixed now by dark matter (NOTHING changed in the math))
score 9/10

Newton mechanics:
1: OK (even simple to compute)
2: OK (so much that we still use it on the internet)
score 8/10

BBT:
1: KO
2: OK (we are still waiting to detect the gravitational waves predicted by inflation) so right now it has been falsified.
I have not find if the cosmological background radiation has been predicted BEFORE by the theory, or retrofitted later (like inflation)
score 4/10 (fails)

String theory:
1:KO
2: KO
score 1/10 (for the funny maths involved)

You'll note that the two latest are still called theories by the zombies of "the scientific community" , although they also agree they are not (especially the latest)
I am not going to respond anymore on this thread unless you agree to stay on OP.

45. I have not find if the cosmological background radiation has been predicted BEFORE by the theory, or retrofitted later
Showing that you are ignorant of the theory you are criticizing.

The spectrum of the black body radiation of the CMB was predicted precisely by the BBT.

This is the confirmation by the WMAP observations. The solid line is the prediction made by the BBT, the dots are the actual measurements by WMAP and the bars are the error bars.

wmap3year.jpg

46. I am not going to respond anymore on this thread unless you agree to stay on OP.
Promises, promises....

47. Originally Posted by Boing3000
BBT:
1: KO
2: OK (we are still waiting to detect the gravitational waves predicted by inflation) so right now it has been falsified.
I have not find if the cosmological background radiation has been predicted BEFORE by the theory, or retrofitted later (like inflation)
score 4/10 (fails)
BBT:
1: OK (between t=3 seconds and today, including the cosmological constant)
2: OK (made many new predictions like, for instance, the results of nucleosynthesis which includes the abundances of light elements in the early universe AND the cosmic microwave background, the time-dilations in distant supernovae, the Tolman test for the apparent angular diameter - distance relationship, which were subsequently confirmed or not falsified)
Score 8/10

Oh but I pretty much agree with you about string theory.

As to GR, if you take the same standards as you used for BBT, I don't know why you gave it such a high value. I mean, we see evidence for it, and describe its results mathematically, but we as of yet have no mechanism for gravity.

48. I agree about string theory also. And since the hypothesis referenced in the op is the braneworld scenerio, which is a development out of string theory, it too must be given a 1/10.

49. Originally Posted by AlexG
The spectrum of the black body radiation of the CMB was predicted precisely by the BBT.
Thank you for backing up my quotation (OK)

But you seems to be ignorant of basic trolling rules. You should not stay on topic while throwing random thoughts around.

Try again

50. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
As to GR, if you take the same standards as you used for BBT, I don't know why you gave it such a high value. I mean, we see evidence for it, and describe its results mathematically, but we as of yet have no mechanism for gravity.
I use the same standard, so I give a 1:KO while you give a 1:OK.
That imply that you know that formulation about inflation is completed ? Can you point me to a link describing when that breakthrough occurs ?

I will then be happy to obliged you be scoring BBT above its contender (maybe granting it the THEORY award in the process).
And then, maybe we could continue to discuss the OP opening by exploring the alteratives ?

51. Originally Posted by Boing3000
But you seems to be ignorant of basic trolling rules. You should not stay on topic while throwing random thoughts around.

Try again
It wasn't trolling... I think most everyone else had the same facepalm reaction to what you wrote. I know I did.
It's not trolling to point out ignorance. I'm ignorant of many things, too. Ignorance is not an insult.
Let's examine why:
Originally Posted by Boing3000
2. Being falsifiable against experiment (that does not mean being true or false, it mean testable) and it means predicting something NEW.
Theory needs to show accuracy. It does not matter how novel it is, or new - if it shows as inaccurate against testing, it goes into the circular file.
Originally Posted by Boing3000
Relativity:
1: OK (with cosmological constant)
What do you mean? Relativity stands without the cosmological constant. The only reason Einstein came up with it was to keep the Universe static. He referred to it as a great blunder and he was correct- it was a great blunder. He showed a bias that was unscientific.
The cosmological constant is now being re-examined, due to the observation of an unexplained acceleration to expansion. But again, this does not mean that Relativity was a working theory only as long as it employed the cosmological constant which was employed to keep the Universe static and not expanding at all.
So your claim that Relativity is OK with the CC makes no sense.
Originally Posted by Boing3000
2: OK (so much ok that we explain so many thing BUT a few (fixed now by dark matter (NOTHING changed in the math))
score 9/10
And here, again, Dark Matter did not "fix" Relativity. In fact, Dark Matter was conceived as a concept to account for an unexplained "holding together" of galaxies that should come apart by their angular velocity.
What it is, is unknown.
Originally Posted by Boing3000
BBT:
1: KO
Is KO a typo of OK or does it mean Knock Out?
Originally Posted by Boing3000
2: OK (we are still waiting to detect the gravitational waves predicted by inflation) so right now it has been falsified.
I have not find if the cosmological background radiation has been predicted BEFORE by the theory, or retrofitted later (like inflation)
score 4/10 (fails)
No, you fail- on both counts. Inflation was not "retro-fitted."
Not at all- in fact, it had been predicted by BBT which caused contention - especially from some like Einstein that wished to believe the Universe was static. Until expansion was directly observed, it was only predicted by BBT.
As was the cosmic background radiation. In fact, the predictions for the CMB were so accurate, that when the actual measurements were taken and plotted on a graph, there error margin was so slight the ink of the lines drawn on a graph that the human eye can see easily hides it, entirely. The error margin was that small.
Originally Posted by Boing3000
String theory:
1:KO
2: KO
score 1/10 (for the funny maths involved)
The maths for string theory are not funny, at all. In fact, they are quite elegant. The problem with string theory is that we currently lack the means to do any testing to make observation for what it predicts, in addition to a variety of unexplained parameters. String is a Hypothesis and a work in progress. It is not theory and I disagree with it being referred to as such. It does, however, show promise and merit.
On a personal note: I personally think string is barking up the wrong tree. But I'm a human and prone to bias as anyone else. I make the note of it only because my rebuttal presents the appearance that I favor string - I actually do not.

52. Originally Posted by Boing3000
I use the same standard, so I give a 1:KO while you give a 1:OK.
That imply that you know that formulation about inflation is completed ? Can you point me to a link describing when that breakthrough occurs ?
I gave no such implication, as I said
OK (between t=3 seconds and today, including the cosmological constant)

53. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Boing3000
I use the same standard, so I give a 1:KO while you give a 1:OK.
That imply that you know that formulation about inflation is completed ? Can you point me to a link describing when that breakthrough occurs ?
I gave no such implication, as I said
OK (between t=3 seconds and today, including the cosmological constant)
OK, so can you point where you get your 3 seconds from ? Some computation, from some math from some new equation from some theory ?
Last time I check inflation was needed for the theory to (exist and to)explain the cosmological BGR homogeneous'ness . You miss the time scale by 32 orders of magnitudes.
I'll stick with my KO. Your BBT is GR and SM applied to the cooling soup. They are the OK theory and they do the math... So we agree the BBT is not even a conjecture but a good recipe to explain the evolution of the universe.
I think we may want to discuss other alternatives (once again trying hard to reintroduce the OP subject).
May we ?

54. Boing3000 has obviously decided we must all be mere parrots of prevailing theory and squashers of descenting views and have taken it upon himself to stand against that, which would be a worthy cause if it were true. Instead he is oblivious to some minor details that just so happens to serve his agenda in their absence. He is making unfounded accusations and characterisations about certain members and staff not based on facts. Your long post in the sigurdV thread had me steaming at the collar with it's unfounded accusations and I decided against a response. You have no idea what you are talking about buddy.

You might think you have us pegged, but you certainly don't. In fact, we LOVE discussing alternate ideas, only, we have to keep to the basic tenets of the scientific method and have to iterate the prevailing theories and why they are favoured in order to put the alternate ideas in context. Unfortunately you have demonstrated some ignorance and an attitude enforced by some malformed sense of authority and ego fuelled sense of righteousness. In case you didn't notice, YOU were the cause of this thread going off topic with a new set of accusations and an attack on well established science. Your little crusader routine is getting old fast.

55. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Boing3000
I use the same standard, so I give a 1:KO while you give a 1:OK.
That imply that you know that formulation about inflation is completed ? Can you point me to a link describing when that breakthrough occurs ?
I gave no such implication, as I said
OK (between t=3 seconds and today, including the cosmological constant)
OK, so can you point where you get your 3 seconds from ?
My mistake, I should have said t=3 minutes!

It is a very famous figure in cosmology, so I am surprised you don't know already. That is the time that our standard model plus GR works back to, based on experiments in particle accelerators - before that the theory is highly speculative. We have speculations that go back as far as t=10^-41 seconds, but no further. But the theory is sound from t=3 minutes onwards.

The domain of applicability of BBT is valid between t=3 minutes and today. It is not a conjecture, it is a sound scientific theory that describes the evolution of the universe.

Originally Posted by Boing3000
I think we may want to discuss other alternatives (once again trying hard to reintroduce the OP subject).
May we ?
Go ahead, but it is no less speculative than BBT in the first 3 minutes, and does not invalidate anything in BBT between t=3 minutes and today.

2 hyper dimensional membranes, based in string theory, colliding... discuss.

56. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Boing3000 has obviously decided we must all be mere parrots
The list of things you find obvious is growing again ? BTW, even if english has the same second person in plural and singular, you should try to cope with the fact you are not all, you are Kalster. If you, Kalster, want to stop parroting basic platitude and participate to the thread, your are welcomed to do so.

Originally Posted by KALSTER
You have no idea what you are talking about buddy.
As a matter of fact, that is part of my scientific upbringing, constant criticism, and coherence. That means I doubt constantly, even about my thinking, because I don't use double standard. So you are right (by accident), buddy

Originally Posted by KALSTER
In fact, we LOVE discussing alternate ideas,....
Well, in another multiverse perhaps. In this one you are not WE, you are only you.

57. I should apologise here. I should have said t=3 minutes, and not t=3 seconds! No wonder you didn't recognise the figure... my mistake.

The BBT is on sound footing from t=3 minutes onwards. That is when nucleosynthesis is theorised to have begun. I blame too many minced pies.

58. However, the part of the theory that does not really make sense is that there was a singularity.
The singularity appears because quantum effects are disregarded in General Relativity. At the moment we do not yet have a self-consistent theory of quantum gravity, so beyond a certain point in the past we can only speculate as to what really went on. It seems highly unlikely though that there actually was a physical singularity.

This to me is not plausible !
The classic argument from the astrophysicists is that 'you can't use normal intuition, or mathematical and physical laws breaks down' - this does not wash for me. Science needs to make the layman understand - if they cannot then have a rethink.
I do not believe that ALL matter could ever have been compressed into such a tiny area.
These are not the kind of statements I would expect to see from someone who has a degree in physics, regardless of how many years ago it was.

When our universe has reached its limit of expansion
What limit of expansion ? Can you quantify that ?

59. Nevertheless no-one here is even discussing that theory which has the advantage of being at least as good as BBT
I think this version of brane cosmology has potentially a lot of merit, though discussing it will be difficult since a lot of the maths are yet to be worked out, and there is no way to decide one way or the other at this point in time.

Boing3000, allow me to make a comment : I don't think you are a "bad guy" or an incorrigible crackpot per se, but my feeling is that you are coming across as far too confrontational, be that on purpose or not. People here take offence not necessarily with your basic ideas ( even though they are certainly unconventional ), but with the way you come across, which is the reason why some of the threads you participate in descend into battles of personalities. We can't necessarily help who we are, but if you did tweak your self-presentation just a tiny bit I feel everyone concerned ( not least yourself ) would benefit hugely.
This just as an observation by a silent observer of this thread. Please take it as constructive feedback, and not as a personal attack.

60. Hi folks - hope you had a good xmas and have a happy new year.

I feel that this thread has gone a bit awry with people not allowing free thought to proceed by attacking other view points. OK I understand that my so called 'theory' of the 2 universes is actually just a thought I had but when I came across what Profs Turok and Paul Steinhardt have come up with, that is some serious stuff. So I would assume that it would deserve some thought too. There seems to be a lot of defending of BBT but little trying to show why the other theory (the proper one not mine !) could be wrong.

Anyway apparently we will know the fate of BBT and other theories quite soon. Does anyone know how that experiment works ?

61. Originally Posted by Sabman
Anyway apparently we will know the fate of BBT and other theories quite soon. Does anyone know how that experiment works ?
What experiment are you referring to ?

I feel that this thread has gone a bit awry with people not allowing free thought to proceed by attacking other view points.
Well, this is a science forum after all - current scientific consensus is what all new ideas/theories are measured against. If the expectation was that everything new is automatically greeted with open arms and a halleluja, then I'm sorry to disappoint, but it's not going to happen. One must remember that everything that goes against current understanding of physics is taken as wrong by default, unless and until proven otherwise - the onus lies on the proponent of the alternative theory to prove him/herself right, and not the other way around. Current scientific consensus is just exactly that - current scientific consensus. It does not need to prove itself right every time someone proposes their own ideas. Too many people who come on here to present their own "pet theories" simply do not appear to understand this, however, this is how science is done - whether or not this seems fair, reasonable or democratic is utterly irrelevant in this context. It is a form of peer review, which currently forms the back bone of scientific progress. And trust me, this forum is kindergarden play compared to real peer review...

In short - if you can't handle feedback, criticism and the occasional sharp comment, then please don't post your non-mainstream ideas in the first place, whether here or anywhere else. Sorry folks, but that is the harsh reality of things.

62. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I think this version of brane cosmology has potentially a lot of merit, though discussing it will be difficult since a lot of the maths are yet to be worked out, and there is no way to decide one way or the other at this point in time.

Hello Markus,
I don't expect on this site long discussion in mathematical term (some may, but I don't). None of the interesting thing I have read on many threads need math above high school level. Sabman was just searching for some clue about that subject, based on very strong arguments**. You give your opinion, and others here have also spoken of layman things, like nucleosynthesis, red-shift, expension, inflation, time frame. It is enough to have a good conversation, IMHO. The article Sabman found is very layman level.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
This just as an observation by a silent observer of this thread. Please take it as constructive feedback, and not as a personal attack.
I agree with that observation 100%, but as a matter of fact I still don't understand why it is like that. What I do think, is that it is not just because of the language gap.
Apart for SpeedFreek, nobody here has been anything that downright rude/confrontational with Sabman, which I am afraid, has already been bullied out of the thread.

Some more examples:
This to me is not plausible !
To me neither. My layman understanding is that quark follows exclusion principle. In our universe neutron start is the denser matter available. Whatever the early universe is made of at this singularity, it is not made of anything but unplausible thing. I just check, and the Grand Unification Theory, another big conjecture, cannot either describe how on earth all these energies/matters/whatever are supposed to behave, if not "fit".
Anyway your second remark to him indicate that all that understanding is part of a standard degree in physics(**) And your first remark imply that it cannot be expressed in anyway but complicate math.
The classic argument from the astrophysicists is that 'you can't use normal intuition, or mathematical and physical laws breaks down' - this does not wash for me. Science needs to make the layman understand - if they cannot then have a rethink.
The first sentence is just basic description of science, no law 'just breakdown' at whatever suitable time 3 second or 3 minute. The second sentences is also true, but out of context.
On the wiki page we see the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years. Surely that level of accuracy exclude that the 3 minutes is computed rewinding from now.
So in layman's term, when we try to fit the approximately known energy content of the universe into the smallest space possible(I suppose Planck energy at every Planck scale) we obtain what ? 3 seconds ?
I do not believe that ALL matter could ever have been compressed into such a tiny area.
I don't think the physic either. But my knowledge is even worst then his. What I see his this (wiki quote)
[CONJECTURE START HERE]
-The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation.
-Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[17]
-At some pointan unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number
-After about 10−11seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments
[SCIENCE START HERE]
-At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles
-A few minutes into the expansion (3 minutes?), when the temperature was about a billion (one thousand million; 109; SI prefix giga-) kelvin and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the Universe's deuterium and heliumnuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis.[22]
-After about 379,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostlyhydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation.[23]
[OBSERVATION START HERE]
What I would have said to Sabman is: everything BBT talk about beyond At some point (that is ALL BBT) is already a huge universe. I would have like to have an idea of its size into light years or in percentage from now. I would have like that some of the alternative discussion's lovers here respond that in minute details.
Nothing is not "point like". Big bang, is a misleading naming.

I agree with you that all that should be known be a physicist. I agree with Sabman that stating BBT like a small point that explode is a mistake on should not be believed.

Now trying to go further into the OP:

Apart from the two "brane" universe, isn't there any cosmological "theory" based on the same observation ? I think I have read somewhere then some experiments are trying to measure if physical laws evolved in time ? Aren't there other contenders in this category ?

Sabman is back, he has past the bullies test !

63. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Amen.
Are you going to turn this thread also into a contest of the most useless full quoting, without any added value ?
Why not?
Why not be lazy?
Whats the matter with you?

64. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Whats the matter within you?
Mainly quarks, or so they say.

65. You talk about your feeling, you did not say "you lamer". You are not confrontational
Well, I try not to be, unless I am dealing with a complete nutcase ( yes, we did have those here ), in which case sometimes I won't hold back

66. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Whats the matter within you?
Mainly quarks, or so they say.
Sorry its antimatter all the way

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement