15Likes
March 5th, 2009, 01:10 PM
I can't get my head around the big bang theory. The problem I have is that I can't imagine 50 billions suns and all that other stuff 'banging from nowhere, nothing, nought.
Respectfully, I can't believe so many clever people accept that an entire universe just popped into existence out of nothing.
Help me out? Any thoughts? Any alternative theories? Whats the chance of the Big Bang theory being wrong?
Thanks
Well, there's an alternate theory called the Big Splat, wherein two three branes periodically slam into each other causing the universe to start all over again. Of course there are problems with this and any theory, which is why scientists continue to look for the truly fundamental. I wouldn't necessarily say that clever people are satisfied with the idea of something out of nothing. You're not alone in that.
The Big Bang says absolutely nothing about what came before it because there has been no evidence to suggest anything before it. It by no means, through this lack of evidence, suggests it came from nothing. There are a large number of philosophical arguments ranging from a wizard did it, to God, to an infinitely recurring universe.
Indeed, all that we know is that the big bang was initially a superdense singularity. My own personal theory, based on relativity, is that the universe prior to ours (I assume infinite repetition) condensed completely into a singularity and then, as the universe no longer had any other frame of reference than that of the singularity, it "exploded" (from our (the singularities') frame of reference) while actually only leaking hawking radiation.
@Darius, I think that idea is generally called the Big Crunch. It posits that the universe will eventually pull back together into a singularity that will explode again into another Big Bang. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely since the discovery that the expansion of the universe isn't slowing down, but actually speeding up. No one really known why this is, but all measurements agree that it's real.
@Couch, I have to agree with Bunbury. Scientists don't think the universe came from nowhere. Instead, they see that at some point in the past, the universe existed in a very tiny, very hot space. They speculate that before that, it must have existed as a single point. Before that philosophy takes over. Science can't currently say anything about the precise moment of the Big Bang or anything before that.
There are alternate theories, but the Big Bang has a lot of supporting evidence. (Note that when I say alternate theories, I'm not talking about all the different theories that try to explain the Big Bang, but theories that try and say it never actually happened.) The two main pieces of evidence are the cosmic microwave background and the expansion of the universe. Unless someone can describe why these should exist without a Big Bang, they are really just blowing smoke.
March 5th, 2009, 04:32 PM
I, for one, refuse to accept the big bang theory. The only acceptable explaination is that the universe never begun. Nothing can begin, nor can it end. It can only exist. This is simply because time doesnt exist, it is only a concept and a measurement developed by humans.Originally Posted by Couch Scientist
March 5th, 2009, 05:02 PM
It was shown by Hawking, Penrose and Ellis that if you accept general relativity, the fact that the universe is currently expanding and a lower bound on the amount of matter in the universe consistent with observation then it is a necessary logical consequence that the universe existed in an extremely compact form (no more than a few centimeters in diameter) at some time in the past. In fact the theory predicts a singularity which is an indication that general relativity breaks down, probably as a result of the importance of quantum phenomena when matter is that highly concentrated.
It doesn't matter what "philosophical" arguments you might have or whether or not you can "get your head around it".
In order for the Big Bang theory to be wrong in a truly meaningful way there would have to be a rather dramatic change in our knowledge of physics and a huge discrepancy in our observations. Revisions of that nature and magnitude are highly unlikely. The history of physics is that while new fundamental understanding can and do occur, the older established theories live on as extremely good approximations within know domains of validity.
In fact, 'something from nothing' has been observed in the lab. For example, in weak decay and the formation of W Bosons; the W boson has a higher mass-energy than the particles involved in it's production. When I inquired about this, I was told that the energy is 'borrowed' from the universe, in that the energy can be temporarily accounted for as being in that position. The W Boson subsequently decays, because this energy cannot exist in that location for extended periods of time.
Assuming energy to be a constant, this can be applied to the pre-universe; energy can be temporarily taken from everywhere else to form particles, but will inevitably decay back to form nothing again. My guess is that the universe is made completely of such 'borrowed' energy, but on a much larger scale, and has not decayed yet because of the particles formed; lepton number and charge violations stop the particles and waves we see from becoming energy again instantaneously. (N.B. Short half lives of 2nd and 3rd generation particles).
This allows the big bang as we know it to occurr, although I can't explain why both matter and antimatter formed and then seperated.
Anyway, this is just my theory I'm working on, and there are still gaps.
I subscribe to a slightly modified theory.
If E=MC^2 then, logically with enough energy matter can be created. I believe that the universe contains matter and antimatter, during the big bang these to matters combined and annihilated releasing vast amounts of energy shooting matter one way and antimatter another (or simply forming matter and antimatter at opposite ends of the universe). Eventually this will repeat, as it has in the past over and over again.
I don't think Anybody is particularly happy with 'something out of nothing' especially not the brains because it's illogical
I think the idea is more along the lines of 'something out of almost nothing' you know how atoms are 99.9999....% nothing right? and how even though the computer you are looking at is only 0.1x10-28% actually there you can still see it and touch it etc, I think it follows this principle imagine if you sucked all the nothingness out of the universe you would be left with a very small lump of solid matter, now imagine if that tiny percent of matter was made of subatomic particales that were also mostly nothing, the thinking is this continues with smaller particles until ultimately we find that the whole universe actually contains less matter than the volume of a single proton, this is what the universe was before the big bang
...I think....
Actually, the suns and everything we see now did not, as you believe the Big bang says, appear out of nowhere. First, a few microseconds after the Big Bang, the particles were formed, and from there the Universe began to cool down, into the state we now today.I can't get my head around the big bang theory. The problem I have is that I can't imagine 50 billions suns and all that other stuff 'banging from nowhere, nothing, nought.
Respectfully, I can't believe so many clever people accept that an entire universe just popped into existence out of nothing.
Help me out? Any thoughts? Any alternative theories? Whats the chance of the Big Bang theory being wrong?
Thanks
Further, the Big Bang is best called a singularity, the kind found at the center of black holes. As such, Hawking radiation offers us a clue to how the Big Bang came about: the collapse of a singularity as it got too small to exist.
There are alternative theories, such as the Steady State theory. However, the Big Bang is currently the most accepted because of its prediction of the cosmic microwave background, discoverewd in the 1950s.
This is like my theory. However, I try to explain where the energy comes from as well.
Actually, by the standard model of particle physics, leptons (electrons, neutrinos, muons etc.) are fundamental, as are quarks (the constituents of hadrons).
Still not very big though.
The farther back in time one goes, the less certain the details...that is why I believe more in evolution than the Big Bang.
March 11th, 2009, 03:00 AM
It's the "and a lower bound on the amount of matter in the universe" part that I think derails their whole argument.It was shown by Hawking, Penrose and Ellis that if you accept general relativity, the fact that the universe is currently expanding and a lower bound on the amount of matter in the universe consistent with observation then it is a necessary logical consequence that the universe existed in an extremely compact form (no more than a few centimeters in diameter) at some time in the past. In fact the theory predicts a singularity which is an indication that general relativity breaks down, probably as a result of the importance of quantum phenomena when matter is that highly concentrated.
Our observation of the universe is one of increasingly large heirarchies. Planet -> Solar System -> Galaxy -> Cluster -> Super Cluster -> and... some fairly compelling evidence of constructs called "Super Cluster Complexes"
Each one has exponentially less matter per area than the one before it. Observation doesn't rule out the possibility that this heirarchy might continue ad infinitum (larger and larger structures with no largest, or maximum structure size)
In other words, observation doesn't rule out the possibility of the universe being absolutely infinite in size, and this speculation need not in any way contradict with a concern that all the matter would collapse, nor with the expectation of seeing an infinite amount of starlight from all directions.
All we'd have to do is come up with an alternate mechanism to explain the redshift of distant objects being proportional to their distance away. With the limitations on our current understanding of light, it's not really unlikely that we might discover just such a mechanism some time in the near future.It doesn't matter what "philosophical" arguments you might have or whether or not you can "get your head around it".
In order for the Big Bang theory to be wrong in a truly meaningful way there would have to be a rather dramatic change in our knowledge of physics and a huge discrepancy in our observations. Revisions of that nature and magnitude are highly unlikely. The history of physics is that while new fundamental understanding can and do occur, the older established theories live on as extremely good approximations within know domains of validity.
Quantum Mechanics has been making some subtle, but interesting advances over the last couple of decades, ever since we started being able to build computers that measure their time in the nano-seconds range.
??? explain please, I thought they were separate theories, how can you belive evolution more than BBT if they arn't related, that's a bit like saying I eat eggs and don't go to the cinema
Im in my first year of chemistry and I know the basic rule. You cannot create or destroy matter (or energy since matter is energy and such) I like the string theory idea of our universe (represented as a membrane) collided with another universe (a second membrane) and created energy which created us! Yay for science! :-D
I think string theory is superfluous at best with its assumptions, and by doing so, creates more problems what it admits it can solve.
It's a useless theory really.
O I agree completly! The basis of string theory (to me atleast) is that in order to make the math work, change the universe. But I have a hard time beleiving a flawless super dense orb collapsed in on itself and BLEW UP. And that method of creation brings s sort of flow which I appreciate. :PI think string theory is superfluous at best with its assumptions, and by doing so, creates more problems what it admits it can solve.
It's a useless theory really.
It's not really so much of that at all. Even though your point is stated correctly, i am still a Copenhagenist at heart. I will never believe that there are possiblyO I agree completly! The basis of string theory (to me atleast) is that in order to make the math work, change the universe. But I have a hard time beleiving a flawless super dense orb collapsed in on itself and BLEW UP. And that method of creation brings s sort of flow which I appreciate. :PI think string theory is superfluous at best with its assumptions, and by doing so, creates more problems what it admits it can solve.
It's a useless theory really.universes (or) as string theory also dictates, crazy amounts of dimensions, 26 by a maximal bosonic string theory. 26 dimensions is proposterous, as even 4 can be to ones mind of space and time.
But most of all, it's had no experimental backing, only mathematical dictatorship which still hasn't been able to unify the gravitational equations with the special classical relativity theories with the quantum phenomena as well. String theory is hopeless, and lost, if it ever desires any ''sane'' reality.
I agree, but its an attempt you unify quantum mechanics and relativity, and I suppose thats what counts, they're "trying". (Personally I think maybe thats just the way it is, the forces effect an object based on its mass and size, and there isnt one unifying thoery.
But string theory should be considered philiospical physics more than theoretical for the same reasons you stated. (no backing)
As for the big bang, theres really no way of knowing what happened billions of years ago. The best we can do is assume! Its one of those thing we might never understand in this life time, like how the universe in expanding into who knows what. Its all philisophical and one can see it how they wish
Our belief has no bearing on the composition of the universe. As far as that applies to scientific theories, the only thing that matters is whether or not its falsifiable. Currently, string theory isn't, but not because it makes no testable predictions, but because it makes predictions that aren't quite testable with our current tools. It should become testable within 20 years or so. In the meantime, physicists should be trying to design easier-to-run experiments so we might not have to wait so long.
Also, as to the possibility of there being no underlying theory, that's kind of a pointless mindset. Basically, if that were true, we should just give up and stop doing physics altogether. :P Also, I think that makes less sense than string theory does. How can there be no underlying mechanism to something?
March 13th, 2009, 12:45 AM
Finally, someone who actually understands the big bang theory! Awesome job explaining!
I admit I haven't read all the posts here. But this comment deserves a response.
I'll be the first to concede that string theory might not be the ultimate theory of the universe. But there's no room for debate about the utility of string theory. It's been well known for many years that string theory is extremely useful in mathematics!
In fact, string theory has opened up entirely new areas of mathematics that would have been inaccessible from a purely mathematical intuition. To list a few results motivated by string theory:
After constructing a quantum field theory justification for the Atiyah-Hirzebruch theorem (spin manifolds with circle actions have vanishing A-genus), Witten generalized the argument to the analogous situation in string theory. As a result, he predicted a very surprising generalization of the Atiyah-Hirzebruch theorem, which was later proven rigorously by mathematicians. It seems very unlikely that mathematicians would have discovered this result on their own--it really makes the most sense from the string-theoretic point of view.
People like Candelas and Brian Greene discovered mirror symmetry. In string theory, mirror symmetry means that two a priori different versions of string theory are often different sides of the same coin. These observations motivated from physics lead to all kinds of mathematical predictions, such as a relationship between complex structures and Kahler structures, and simple formulas for counting curves. Again, it seems highly unlikely that these relationships would have been discovered without string theory--as the underlying mathematical explanations are in many cases extremely messy and non-intuitive.
This doesn't mean, of course, that string theory is the actual model of the universe. My guess is that string theorists have--at the very least--discovered a consistent mathematical apparatus that has yet to be proven rigorous (much like when Newton discovered calculus before the real numbers had been constructed). Either way, given the immense, game-changing impact it has had in pure mathematics, I think we owe string theory a little more respect.
March 13th, 2009, 02:29 PM
I don't see it as a matter of understanding. But rather, comprehension.Finally, someone who actually understands the big bang theory! Awesome job explaining!
You know, if you look at the Big Bang theory deconstructed, all there is to see is a an expansion of light waves that relates linearly to the distance between us and the emitter, a cosmic background radiation that's more or less constant in all directions, and a very uniform distribution of elements.
(The third one really isn't evidence of anything but the randomness that governs matter generation, if you look at it in light of random set theory, and apply the law of large numbers.)
Everything else about the theory is pretty much just what people add to those three things. It's all imaginary once you get past that point, and of course that doesn't mean it's necessarily false, but you know: it gets to be kind of like a religion at some point.
I can just hear some preacher in a lab coat ranting on about it all : " It's only given to some to know. Only those who have faith to believe!!!!"
It's true that theory runs out at some point, but I don't think it runs out that quickly.
No, it doesn't, at least not usually.
It just seems to me like we've got a skinned cat here, and we're assuming a serrated knife was used to cause it, because we know serrated knives can be used to skin cats. (But is that the only way to skin a cat?)
That may be true, but we've spent many years now ruling out other explanations, and also finding more and more evidence that supports the idea of a serrated knife.
Essentially agree. But I would state my ideas on this matter, at least not yet.
Let me state something which may bring the ridiculous nature of the big bang into light...
From Cophenaginistic Views
The universe began as a pure fluke. According to the wave function of the universe (see Hawkings idea's on quantum cosmology) and Doctor Wolfs notions in Parallel Universes, that the universe MUST HAVE begun from an infinite amount of choices, out of which, somehow this universe appeared. Not only that, but it appeared from no where, because the big bang cannot answer for all the variables to why it came into existence.
From a Multiverse Point of View
Now we have all possible universes from De Witt, which arise dependantly not unique to each other, thus our universe was just one of an infinite amount of universes that popped into existence without any prior cause... yet again, the question of why and how they came into existential appearance is not answered, not unless one wants to adopt the Ekpyrotic Theory as some kind of answer... but that theory is surely just a hypothesis.
............. So, either way, until we can answer how something (that is everything observable) came from nothing, a total absurdity, then we are left with the big bang theory, and despite all of its evidential proofs, it still has this majorn problem, that is again, how can something real come from nothing?
Sorry but the words 'come' and 'from' have absolutely no meaning in this context, you are asking a nonsensical question so how can you expect a rational answer?
Good point.
But that conversation was four years ago...
I find the question of "How did it come from nothing" to be a nonsense question promoted primarily (in other words, deliberately lying for their agenda) by fundamentalists.
I see no reason to accuse anyone of dishonesty, and I really don't like it when you do that. There is no indication that anyone posting on this thread is a fundamentalist. It is perfectly natural for people to try to explain things in terms of their normal everyday experience. Generally, when we see things happen, it can be traced to something that happened before. The fact is that the theory of relativity breaks down at the "singularity" so nobody really understands this. Why bash someone who is trying to understand it to the best of their ability?Good point.
But that conversation was four years ago...
I find the question of "How did it come from nothing" to be a nonsense question promoted primarily (in other words, deliberately lying for their agenda) by fundamentalists.
Maybe you are the one who is being dishonest.
Just for the record: I consider myself a fundamentalist both in terms of atheism and science.
The accusation was not directed toward anyone in this thread. I had said it is primarily promoted by fundamentalists- a quick google search can show you how ridiculously prominent it is on fundie websites.
It is deliberate dishonesty when promoted as such- for example; Answers In Genesis is a dishonest site- it deliberately picks and chooses how to cherry pick the information in an effort to keep God in the picture. That requires intent.
Those that engage in this behavior may not like the charge, it is accurate, nonetheless.
What you say is true for many people though, who are not being dishonest and are going by intuition or even- what they were told by others.
And they do not deserve to be bashed for trying to understand- no. It goes to show how despicable those that deliberately are dishonest in presentation really are.
So, it doesn't have anything in partucular to do with this thread, you are just riding your favorite hobby horse.The accusation was not directed toward anyone in this thread. I had said it is primarily promoted by fundamentalists- a quick google search can show you how ridiculously prominent it is on fundie websites.
It is deliberate dishonesty when promoted as such- for example; Answers In Genesis is a dishonest site- it deliberately picks and chooses how to cherry pick the information in an effort to keep God in the picture. That requires intent.
Those that engage in this behavior may not like the charge, it is accurate, nonetheless.
What you say is true for many people though, who are not being dishonest and are going by intuition or even- what they were told by others.
And they do not deserve to be bashed for trying to understand- no. It goes to show how despicable those that deliberately are dishonest in presentation really are.
Do you think that the people who run the Answers in Genesis web site don't really believe the stuff they post there? They are really atheists, having a bit of fun then, trying to get guys like you all spun up? Damn those atheists!
I said it was not directed at an individual person in the thread. I never said it had nothing to do with the thread.
These fundamentalists flat out Lie, Harold14370.
The Big-Bang God or the God of Scripture? - Answers in Genesis
Chapter 2: The Big Bang? - Answers in Genesis
They do so deliberately and with intent. They do so in order to protect and preserve a myth. It is the act of desperation- to fit the data to conform to belief. And the oft toted lie is the misconception that "Scientists say the Big Bang created everything from nothing."
I stand against the lies, the manipulation and the deception. I stand against this behavior that seeks to undermine solid education, understanding and progress.
If you don't, that is your business. But I do.
So you can defend the lairs, the charlatans, the Sylvia Browns, the John Edwards and all of the other creeps that prey on flights of fancy, that try hard to manipulate people into doubting the results of critical thinking and scientific research and methodology.
You can defend those that lie in order to make it appear that scientists are lying.
I will not. I will speak out against them, no matter how much you dislike it.
In order to manipulate the data and distort things as they do- it must be done with deliberate intent. Perhaps they do lie to themselves in the process- it doesn't make it Not A Lie, now does it?
Get off my Back Harold14370. Defend those that undermine education, those that distort and lie, the cranks and the fools alike. But do it elsewhere.
This is a Science Forum. Not a Pander to absurdities Forum.
You can threaten me with your ban hammer. You can fight it out with me. You can do what you want.
I will not stop standing up against the superstitious, the absurd, the crank claims, the dishonesty or the far-fetched conspiracy claims. So just get used to it.
You said it was deliberate.I said it was not directed at an individual person in the thread. I never said it had nothing to do with the thread.
These fundamentalists flat out Lie, Harold14370.
The Big-Bang God or the God of Scripture? - Answers in Genesis
Chapter 2: The Big Bang? - Answers in Genesis
They do so deliberately and with intent. They do so in order to protect and preserve a myth. It is the act of desperation- to fit the data to conform to belief. And the oft toted lie is the misconception that "Scientists say the Big Bang created everything from nothing."
I stand against the lies, the manipulation and the deception. I stand against this behavior that seeks to undermine solid education, understanding and progress.
If you don't, that is your business. But I do.
So you can defend the lairs, the charlatans, the Sylvia Browns, the John Edwards and all of the other creeps that prey on flights of fancy, that try hard to manipulate people into doubting the results of critical thinking and scientific research and methodology.
You can defend those that lie in order to make it appear that scientists are lying.
I will not. I will speak out against them, no matter how much you dislike it.
In order to manipulate the data and distort things as they do- it must be done with deliberate intent. Perhaps they do lie to themselves in the process- it doesn't make it Not A Lie, now does it?
Refute the claims as you will. However I think you wouild do better if you had a more realistic idea about their motivations. You are not coming across as a disinterested observer when you make stuff up about these people that isn't even logical. You only confirm their suspicions.Get off my Back Harold14370. Defend those that undermine education, those that distort and lie, the cranks and the fools alike. But do it elsewhere.
This is a Science Forum. Not a Pander to absurdities Forum.
You can threaten me with your ban hammer. You can fight it out with me. You can do what you want.
I will not stop standing up against the superstitious, the absurd, the crank claims, the dishonesty or the far-fetched conspiracy claims. So just get used to it.
I did say that. I stand by that. It is deliberate when the fundies promote such clear contradictions. Read the links I posted. That kind of manipulation is deliberate.
I call it for what it is. I don't douse it in rose petal perfume. Are you saying that they are just victims of delusion? Not my problem.
I do think I understand where you are coming from. Let's switch topics (off of religion):
Does Bart Sibrel actually believe the stuff that he spouts in his income earning books? I do not know. I have also, if I recall correctly, never called Sibrel a liar. This is because as presented, it is plausible that Sibrel believes his bunk. It's also plausible that he doesn't but it's his only source of revenue.
Back on topic:
There are many fundamentalists that truly believe what they spout. But when confronted with the evidence, these believers will close their ears to it. They do not spend a great deal of time finding a way to manipulate the data as the writers of Answers In Genesis must do. Those that must do so, however, are exposed to the full force of it and are tasked to distort it in some way that is manageable to put it in favor of their view. This goes far beyond simple delusion and denial. It goes into deliberate and dedicated deception.
I call them Liars. I charge them with that. I make the accusation.
Because they do this, they mislead a great many people, who, dealing with counter-intuitive facets of theory, are confused and even come here asking questions.
Such as RyanAwe123.
Some plainly say that they were taught this stuff by the manipulators or because they read it on one of many sites like answers in genesis.
Some were not exposed to that and are asking because they do not understand it.
But it is on topic to point out the fallacy and the deception that is commonly and intentionally distributed by the nutters; like Chick Tracts (although I think this guy is further into the realm of wildly out of his wits than deliberately deceptive).
Simply because not all fundamentalists go about it with deliberate intent does not mean that those that do are suddenly exonerated.
Last edited by Neverfly; May 2nd, 2013 at 11:21 AM.
the big bang = t0 itself, can't be explained, it should actually be: BB + planck = verified measurements.
I'd be interested to hear why people think there necessarily has to be an 'explanation'. It does seem to me that in our currently observable continuum, cause and effect is a reality and that everything has an explanation. However I can see no compelling reason for anything having an explanation or 'reason' at t=0.
I personally feel intuitively that given zero dimension it is a 100% certainly that t=0 will become t=0+n, the big mystery then is in fact - Why this particular set of constants?
prolly because planck is the smallest verified amount. noone knows what happened between t0 and planck yet. i.e. before you started to lift up that rock, you had to bend over and grab it.
that it has no explanation would require an explanation of why that in this instance that is so. it would be far stranger for this to be.It does seem to me that in our currently observable continuum, cause and effect is a reality and that everything has an explanation. However I can see no compelling reason for anything having an explanation or 'reason' at t=0.
isn't the question more that how/what occurred than why/when? concerning the BB we can verify the reaction but not the cause.
Using data that scientists have found doing research in many scientific fields and extrapolating their findings into something that they all, as well as we common people, understand because the data leads them to produce the theory that the facts point to. Now all of the facts are not yet in yet nor are all of the facts clearly understood but science keeps searching through various ways to better understand just what made this universe and how it was done, if they can.
I do hope that the theory that we have can be better quantified and proven with more data that is being gathered but at least it is an attempt to explain what the universe is and how it works. Until all of the data is in we will have to wait and see what the final theory is and how the underlying data can prove beyond a shadow of doubt what this universe is and where it came from. This will take time and perseverance by many who work in the fields that study the universe and their task is a very huge undertaking but I do hope they continue their work and ultimately find out the truth, no matter what it finally turns out to be.
After some years we will will understand it better Wait
There is also the big bounce theory, but I don't know the credibility of that theory. Because we didn't necessarily come from nothing, we may have once been a black hole that is still exploding, part of a larger universe.
Even though this is really taboo, I'm going to say it. It is possible—though far from likely—that Einstein was wrong. We as a species are not omnipotent, so we cannot assume that it is absolutely completely entirely and wholly impossible to go from nothing to something and vice versa.
Why do you think this? What Einstein theory (or part of a theory) is wrong?
I don't feel that he was actually wrong, but I make it a point to try and consider everything as a possibility.Why do you think this? What Einstein theory (or part of a theory) is wrong?
Why bother to explain anything at all then?
We have three phenomena.
1) - The red shift of light coming from far away places, proportional to how far away.
2) - The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - which emanates from all directions equally, with only tiny variations.
3) - The apparent over-abundance of elements with atomic cores smaller than Iron and Nickel.
Those three observations are interesting all by themselves. Building a model out of them creates more questions than it answers. The "where did it all come from" question is just the tip of the iceberg. There are quite many more absurdities that have to be explained away in order to get back to that singularity.
Why not just live with three absurdities, and be happy?
I think that we can certainly attempt to explain anything and everything that takes place after t=0. But asking nonsensical questions is obviously futile.
Well, no one ever said that the Big Bang came from nothing, did they, the Big Bang is thought to have originated in a area outside universes called "hyperspace" (this is only relevant if you accept multiverses as being real)
Hyperspace is devoid of everything except universes. It would take me ages to explain all the theories on how universes are created but one theory is that universes originate in white holes, the polar opposite of black holes, which are believed to be on the other side of a black hole. This white hole expands as its black hole counterpart sucks in more matter. And it is thought that white holes are new universes by some. This is believed to be one way of demonstrating that universes are just continuations of previous universes.
So in matter of fact, we could be living inside a inconcievably tiny space inside a singularity that resides in another universe.
This sounds like something Kaku would come up with.
The real question that bugs me is not "where did it come from?", but rather how did the speed of expansion keep changing in the early stages? That happened after t=0 and is left pretty much unexplained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_big_bang
So we have a large number of Theories, each comprising one or more Hypotheses. How then do we go about separating the crackpot theories from those that may have some validity, particularly with respect to 'exotic' cosmological theories? My guess is that a theory may be taken seriously if it amenable to mathematical modelling in such a way that testable predictions can be generated. There definitely seems to be a slightly fuzzy area between 'outright crank' and far out but plausible theories however and I'm sometimes unsure how to differentiate them.
And how testable is "testable" for you? If my theory predicts that the sky will be blue, and you observe it to be blue, does that prove the rest of my theory, or only the part about the sky being blue?
BBT has made a few predictions that weren't already apparent, such as the existence of a CMBR (though the value was initially incorrect). Most of the "proofs", however, appear to be merely ways the theory ended up being consistent with itself - which of course proves only that the hypothesis makers were good logicians.
BBT is the current accepted Model due to it being the most accurate by current standards. It is not considered to be a truth nor irrefutable. It is expected that a more accurate model will someday replace it. A more accurate model with better observation has yet to be presented.
So we stick with the one we do have and try to make more observations. Is BBT in trouble? Maybe someday. Every theory can be claimed to be "in trouble" since every theory will always be called into question and always tested for accuracy.
It depends. The important thing about theories in this context is that they are self-consistent. So if blueness is an essential outcome of of your theory, and is observed, then that supports your theory. But note that a theory is never proved. It is only shown to be consistent with the data.
You can disprove a theory; e.g. you predict the sky is blue but it turns out to be red - that probably disproves your entire theory. It will presumably need some significant changes to fit the new data.
Again, there are no proofs. The big bang theory is currently the theory that provides the best fit to all observations.BBT has made a few predictions that weren't already apparent, such as the existence of a CMBR (though the value was initially incorrect). Most of the "proofs", however, appear to be merely ways the theory ended up being consistent with itself - which of course proves only that the hypothesis makers were good logicians.
And that "all" is tricky. It is relatively easy to come up with a theory that fits some observations and brush the others under the carpet. That is what the pseudoscience crowd do with their pet theories (if they bother with data at all): they like to pick one observation and say, "that proves me right".
I understand that every inch of theoretical landscape that isn't locked down tight becomes a breeding ground for cranks. However I don't think that out cranking the cranks is a very good solution. Just ignore them.
The biggest practical benefit of Astronomy has always been its ability to give us insight into the fundamental laws of physics, insight we likely couldn't have gotten from a local source. If every new phenomenon we find out there is going to get explained away by making an adjustment to the creation story, then how is it supposed to play that role?
Suppose that, with more open dialogue, a different reason were discovered for the abundance of lighter elements. Maybe a new law of nuclear physics we hadn't previously seen in effect on the small scale? What if that new discovery could have unlocked hydrogen fusion and saved millions of lives by staving off famines or powering desalinization plants down here on Earth? That's why it disgusts me. I think it's irresponsible to close dialogues prematurely, especially by reference to events that cannot be replicated. (If they can't be replicated then we can't devise a technology based on them.)
The more useful a scientific inquiry is, the more it benefits humanity, and the more likely it is that humanity will want to fund it.
There are people (scientists) looking at all sorts of alternative explanations and theories for pretty much everything. And looking for new ways to test (break) existing theories.
There are dozens of variations of the big bang theory being explored. I have seen mainstream papers about cosmology with no big bang. People are investigating all sorts of alternative theories of gravity. There are many different attempts to produce a "fundamental" theory from which gravity, GR, time, quantum theory, etc will just "emerge".
People are researching "mirror matter", unparticles, and all sorts of exotica that we have no reason to (currently) believe exist.
There are many different attempts to explain and detect dark matter and dark energy. Including some that try to unify the two. Or get rid of one or both.
When cold fusion was announced, loads of labs attempted to replicate the results. Maybe some still are.
When the "faster than light" neutrinos paper was published, loads of people tried to come up with explanations and new experiments to test them.
There just isn't the closed, one-track, model of science you seem to suggest.
It really doesn't seem that far fetched to me. At the quantum level, particles and anti-particles randomly pop into existence all the time. Before the big bang, all mass in the universe would have likely existed as energy. As energy doesn't occupy space, all the mass of the universe could have existed at a single point of infinite density. As quantum flucutations started to occur, that energy started converting into matter/anti-matter, which when combined, caused the big bang itself. Just one opinion.
Two thoughts/questions from an enthusiastic amateur - they are probably "Cosmology 101" - but be nice, I am new here.Could it be that over the vast distances involved, the light is simply losing energy? This would give rise to what might look like red shift - the further away the object, the more energy lost by the time it got to us and therefore the greater the apparent red shift - but this would not mean the object was moving away.We observe red shift from distant galaxies. The further away they are the more the red shift is, so the faster they are going. Therefore the Universe is expandingImagine a balloon filled with gas. If it is heated it will expand. The fact it is expanding does not mean that the balloon and its contents started as a singularity. The universe might have somehow existed, like a bag of gas. After millennia, the gas started coalescing and eventually stars ignited. Could the energy released by these stars be causing the expansion that we observe, and if so could this mean that the universe did not start from a singularity?The universe is expanding, therefore if we run the 'clock' back, it means it all started from a single point; a singularity
This was one of the earliest attempted explanations. It doesn't work: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
We have no idea how or if the universe "started". The model cannot be wound back to time zero; the theory no longer applies at those very early times (which is pretty much what "singularity" means).Could the energy released by these stars be causing the expansion that we observe, and if so could this mean that the universe did not start from a singularity?
But we can see evidence for expansion from an early hot, dense state from long before stars and galaxies formed.
Last edited by Strange; May 24th, 2013 at 05:53 AM. Reason: last para
Thanks for the link. I understand electromagnetic waves and propagation because I've worked with microwave communications, but the cosmology here is over my head, so I will have to think about it.
As for the second thing; I agree, but a lot of folk seem to believe in the 'big bang' (and this is what the OP was asking too). My question really was what evidence do they have for that? Just because a universe is expanding now - why does that imply that it all came from a singularity?
OB
(Ah, I've just noticed there is a cosmology thread elsewhere on this forum. Sorry, I'm new here.) OB
It doesn't.
The fact that if you "rewind" the universe you end with infinities probably means that our theories are no longer applicable at that point.
(I'll leave someone who knows more about it to answer the "what evidence" question, but there is a lot.)
Another link-- I'm very fond of posting this one:
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...DavisSciAm.pdf
And yet another... Usually I dive in on this to put things in my own words- I'm a little lazy this morning. I've found that the TalkOrigins website is very comprehensive- a person can spend weeks reading on it.
I've referenced this site for many years and I have not read all of the content on there...
Evidence for the Big Bang
One of the telling pieces of evidence in favor of the BB is the black body spectrum of the CMBR. The graph are the results of WMAP. When it were shown at the AAAS conference, the audience was stunned.
wmap3year.jpg
The predictions of the BB theory match the observed values exactly, to the point there the data point are larger than the error bars.
Ah. Well I will take your word - I don't have enough knowledge on that yet.
Can I just ask though; Going back to 'tired light' - If this does not happen; does that imply that the energy of an electromagnetic wave never diminishes then - apart from reducing due to the inverse square law?
Or am I mixing up two different things?
OB
Maybe.
If we forget (cosmological) red shift for the moment, then the energy of an EM wave decreases by the inverse square law - simply because it gets more "spread out". The energy of the individual photons does not change, however, there are just fewer of them per unit area (area depends on).
When it comes to cosmological red shift, then the energy of the photons does change - that is what red-shift means. The frequency of a photon is proportional to its energy. Lower energy means lower frequency ("redder"). This is because the photons are observed in a different frame of reference to the one they were created in, and energy is "observer dependent".
OK.
Your first agrees with what I said. However, my only relevant experience is with microwave links, where the EM waves are travelling relatively short distances on earth, or from geostationary orbit, through an atmosphere which is highly attenuating. Is there no attenuation in space at all? I would have thought that even in the vacuum of space, over distances of billions of light years there must be a significant amount of particles getting 'in the way' ?
The second; I thought red shift was a doppler effect? - the source is moving away so fast that the perceived frequency is reduced towards the red end of the spectrum. However, you seem to be saying that red shift is a loss of energy, have I got that right?
OB
Hello everyone. First off I want to apologize before hand for the length of this post. Most it’s length is to quote an article on the so-called mass-energy relationship. I’m joining in this discussion quite late in the game. I’m fairly new here so that’s one reason I was unable to post earlier and then there’s the fact that I’ve been quite busy on other aspects of physics at home. Pen and paper stuff. Bunch of math, problem solving etc. I needed to sharpen my skills. Plus I forgot exactly how much fun physics can be when left to my own devices.
I agree. I'm the same way. I imagine that most physicists are, or at least the really good ones who are secure in themselves to say whatever is on their minds. My physics advisor from my alma mata had similar feelings. The one thing to keep in mind is that what we have theorized about the Big Bang Theory is an extrapolation in to the past. Never forget that. But when we make some simple assumptions based on how the universe seems to be on the large scale and hold true to the cosmological principle then we can make some progress by deriving the overall geometry of the universe (but not its topology) and observations of the cosmos are remarkably precise with predtions made using general relativity.
May I ask what is it about it that's bothering you. I ask because sometimes its very helpful to get to the core of our uneasiness and determine what it is about something that’s gnawing at us. What we know and how we feel are rooted in our experiences. In every day life, and in some areas of physics, we can’t get something from nothing. However what about things that are outside our experiences? What about those things that can happen in nature but nobody was ever around to witness them? For instance; we know that when matter interacts with antimatter they annihilate each other and all that is left is radiation. For example, when an electron hits a positron the result is two photons. What happened to the mass? Where did it go? In every day life we don’t experience such things but they do happen and they happen outside our experiences. The better we get at observing the universe and the more examples that we witness of what was previously known the better we can answer questions such as yours.
Are you familiar with the expression E = mc2 and what it means? If not then it means that where there is mass we can extract or input energy of various forms into or out of it. Some people call this the mass-energy equivalence and say that mass is equivalent to energy. I don’t accept that picture myself. I’m not alone on this view either. It was expressed in the article On the Inertial Mass Concept in Special and General Relativity by Mendel Sachs, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 8, 377-383 (1973). This post was too long so I had to put this in another post. See next post
I wanted to make this clear before I continued. Many people miss these facts or never consider them at all. I’ve seen many people debate one definition of mass often referred to as relativistic mass. Why they bicker over a definition is beyond me. Tell me what you mean when you use a term and we can talk, period! What’s so damn hard about that? Lol!!
Let me explain. The relativistic mass M of a particle whose proper mass is m is defined as the quantity M such that the quantity p = mv is a conserved quantity in particle interactions when the particles interact only by contact forces. This turns out to mean that its proportional to the timelike component of the particle’s 4-momentum P. I.e.whereas the inertial energy (defined as the total energy W minus the particles non-gravitational potential energy) is proportional to the timelike component of the particles 1-form, i.e.
(Note: I forget where the c goes so I might have goofed on the constant of proportionality – no big deal). That is to say that Ei = E - V. For example; consider a charged particle moving in an arbitrary electromagnetic field. Then
where
= the potential energy of a charged particle in an EM field. The quantity
is known as the electric potential. I use the term inertial energy to refer to the quantity
in oder to distinguish it from other kinds of energy. So we have the total energy E given by
wherewhere m is the particle's proper mass and
is the so-called relativistic mass (which is sometimes given the symbol m and the proper mass is expressed as
). It's easy to see that
.
Why did I explain all that? In order to make sure that when I say that the total energy of the universe is zero, has been from the get go and has will be in the future and that some of the positive contribution of that form of the energy has been changed from one form into the matter that we observe around us. The negative part originates in the gravitational energy. In his book The Inflationary Universe Alan H. Guth refers to this as the ultimate free lunch.
That is one way of looking at how the universe can come from what you’re thinking as nothing. If you’re having problems accepting the big bang theory then you should read this book. It’s awesome!
And for good reason, they don’t.
Absolutely. See above.
Nothing I’d consider to be valid. But you should seek a way around it. Think out of the box as they say. There is a very good chance, in fact, personally, I’m certain of it, that general relativity theory breaks down when you go far enough back in time, i.e. before the inflationary epoch. The further back you go the greater the amount of particle energies that existed then. One gentleman mentioned branes above (something I’m completely ignorant about by the way) and then there’s the Pre-Big Bang Scenario. It’s rooted in string theory. I think they call it quantum cosmology. Not sure though.
There is an article available online by M. Gasperini, G. Veneziano, two of the names normally associated with this theory. See their article at [hep-th/0207130] The Pre-Big Bang Scenario in String Cosmology
See also
Time before the Big Bang
To be precise I really don’t know how to answer questions like that because one can’t apply statistics to it so the question usually means something besides asking for a percent. Otherwise I’d say that’s almost certain. In fact I’d bet my life on it.
Last edited by PhyMan; June 13th, 2013 at 11:48 PM. Reason: Fix Latex tag
You addressed this to someone else but I assume that you don't mind if I respond, yes? If so then here's the way that I view cosmological redshift. In the first place the photon's energy definitely is decreased, no bout a doubt it. But decrease in energy corresponds to a increase in wavelength. The increase in wavelength is quite literally due to the fact that space is actually expanding. Think of it as space is stretching the wavelength out.
I like to view this as follows; what would happen to the speed something like a planet which was moving in space which itself is actually expanding? What happens is that the amount of space that the object has to travel is increased. It's like moving A telephone pole from across the street to across town. My car only moves at 20 mph. So it takes me longer to get to the telephone pole than had it been across the street. Effectively the kinetic energy of my car has changed because its effective speed has decreased due to the increase in distance. Locally my care is still moving at 20 mph.
Now back to the photon. Since the rest energy of a photon is zero the energy of the photon is all kinetic energy. Therefore the kinetic energy of the photon has decreased and that corresponds to a decrease in the energy of the photon and a decrease in frequency since they're proportional.
I hope that answers your inquiry to your satisfaction. If no please let me know. I want to get better at explaining things in cosmology so any feedback you can give me will be of great help to me Since if I can explain it better its only because I understand it better sop thank you in advance.
I think PhyMan's explanation in terms of the universe having expanded since the photon was emitted is a good one.
This expansion of space between here and there is also the cause for the apparent velocity of distance galaxies. They are not moving away from us, but the distance between us is increasing!
Thanks! Truth be told though, I goofed! The car actually does slow down, hence the reason for it's loss of kinetic energy. I didn't cover where the energy goes though. From Gravitation and Spacetime – Third Edition by Ohanian and Ruffini (2013), page 405I think PhyMan's explanation in terms of the universe having expanded since the photon was emitted is a good one.
This expansion of space between here and there is also the cause for the apparent velocity of distance galaxies. They are not moving away from us, but the distance between us is increasing!
This argument also answers the question were the energy goes--the photons or the light waves in the box do work against the receding walls, therefore lose energy.[quote]The expansion of the universe, and the expansion of the radiation, leads to a reduction of the temperature of the radiation. To see what happens to the thermal radiation in some expanding region of space, imagine that this region, of size much smaller than the size of the universe, is enclosed in a box with perfectly reflecting walls. Suppose that this box expands at the same rate of the universe. Under these assumptions, the radiation in the region inside the box will behave in the same way as radiation in some region outside the box. The reason is that whereas in a region surrounded by walls, photons are reflected and cannot escape, in a region without walls, any photon that do escape are, on average, simply replaced by similar photons that enter the region from the surrounding space.
-
I.e. (I’m paraphrasing a friend) in the absense of a singularity at the momentum of the Big Bang appears to be a contradiction with such theorems. Those theorems deal only with the classcial regime and can be circumvented in the early universe where matter is in the form of quantum fields and even geometry is quantized (the so-called quantum foam).
The presence of a cosmological constant can lead to a violation of the energy condition in those theorems even in the classical regime. In the pre-inflationary, very dense epoch, quantum fields dominated the universe, so singularity theorems were, again, inapplicable.
Attempts have been made to modify Einstein’s equations that avoid singularities altogether. (Brandenberg, R.H. (1985). Rev. Mod. Phys. 57, 1)
Couch Scientist – Please don’t let comments like this make you shy away from the kinds of questions that you’ve asked here. They are great questions. The reason that they’re great questions is because they are honest questions. Not to mention that there are plenty of physicists who feel the exact same way that you do. Keep asking those great questions. It makes us work harder to explain the answer better.
Hi Phyman, et al,
No problem, except I am going to have to go to University for 3 years before I can get to grips with this!!
But thanks for trying,
OB
=
Last edited by star gazer girl; June 12th, 2013 at 10:02 PM.
Well, most of us here prefer there to be at least a smidgen of science involved, especially in the science sections. It doesn't help to be so open minded that your brains fall out of your ears. And yes, we do judge you for it.
Nothing to do with the Big Bang.
This is a science site: we don't deal in beliefs.In a way i belive the univese is like the cyrcle of life itself and nothing in the whole intire universe could stop it and my theory is not proven but i do stand for my belives and do not take anything back of what i have typed but i am vey open minded so i will also consider anyone elses belives and i will not juge them for it. -star gazer girl
PS learn to spell.
Star Gazer girl, it isn't nice to delete your posts after people have responded. So I did you a favor and requoted what you deleted.
Apparently... You do take it back.
What you described was your hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is supported by evidence and testing.
And a belated welcome to the forum.
This exactly why whenever anyone mention the big bang theory I laugh inside
(especially when religious extremists find holes in it to make god exist again..but anyways)
until anyone can make a pocket universe and show us that after rapid expansion all matter then magically does the opposite , then 'explodes' again I'd much rather believe in the multi-universe theory. to me this explains how at least one universe can continue to exist as the mattter and (hawking) radiation emitted when galaxies slowly get sucked into their black holes eventually meets another universe (if you can really draw a distinctive line between the two).
just or thought
It sounds as if that might be because you don't know much about it.
1. There is no need to make a "pocket universe" (whatver that means). We have a real one we can look at.until anyone can make a pocket universe and show us that after rapid expansion all matter then magically does the opposite , then 'explodes' again
2. Rapid expansion, yes. "Then does the opposite"? What is that supposed to mean?
Most credible hypotheses/speculations (there are no theories) of multiple universes are based on big bang comsology.I'd much rather believe in the multi-universe theory.
It is extremely unlikely (impossible?) that an entire galaxy would fall into a single black hole. And, of course, as such black holes increase in size, they release less and less Hawking radiation.the mattter and (hawking) radiation emitted when galaxies slowly get sucked into their black holes
creation of a pocket universe (one that exists outside of this universe and smeller in size to be able to be observed to it's fullest extent ) thus allowing full study to be made.
2. well all i can say to that is what is the opposite of an explosion :3 ...
3. the multi universe theory is not part of the big bang cosmology, that's exactly why i brought it up..
4. yes the large he black hole the less hawking radiation, simply exponential slowing the process but it does happen, so i don't see why your arguing this...
4. the uncertainty of if a galaxy can be completely consumed by a black hole is precisely why the original pocket universe theory is stated
effectively : we don't know enough. I'm sorry if you didn't read that with my earlier comments.
I don't know. That is why I asked.
And the big bang is not an explosion.
There is no multi universe "theory". There are multiple speculative ideas (none have evidence). It might be helpful if you said which you are referring to. As far as I know, they are all based on the big bang model.3. the multi universe theory is not part of the big bang cosmology, that's exactly why i brought it up..
There really isn't much uncertainty there. There is no conceivable way an entire galaxy will collapse on itself so it falls into the black hole. They appear to be stable for billions of years (baring occasional collisions).4. the uncertainty of if a galaxy can be completely consumed by a black hole is precisely why the original pocket universe theory is stated
We?effectively : we don't know enough.
outside of the universes effects on the pocket universe, can still be observed.
i use the term explosion to simplify matters , yes it can't be classified as such as space and time was created as it expanded, no differential so no explosion as such, but would rather me type this obvious fact every time i mention it ?
multiuniverse theory is based upon the big bang theory as it requires this expansion of space-time folding to take place on each recurrence and must be constant across all for each to effect this transfer of energy and mass, which comes back to original thesis.
*sigh
I got here a little late this morning, and look what I missed. Where did all this stupid come from?
"I've crunched the numbers, Johnson... But I'm still not sure... Smell this Pocket Universe and tell me is this seems right to you..."
Strange already pointed out we have a Universe to observe.
An implosion?
That is because it is not a theory- it is a hypothesis.
Can you translate this into sense?
Didn't you just list number four?
There is no uncertainty about this. You have no knowledge of cosmology but you believe you have knowledge.
True, but you appear to know less than you think you know.
How can you observe something outside of the Universe?
You really did not think this through, did you?
I would have gone a different way... such as using the word, "Expansion," instead.
Yes.
Ditto.
Keep it up. You're heading toward the exit at an accelerated pace.
You do know that the Interwebz have special tubes where folks like you congregate, don't you? Why have you chosen to inflict your ignorance on the denizens of The Science Forum?
Jshelley - you have shown that you are not competent to post on the physics sub-forum. Please stop.
I tend to go the opposite direction, remaining skeptical of expansion theory until somebody shows me in a laboratory that space itself can expand.This exactly why whenever anyone mention the big bang theory I laugh inside
(especially when religious extremists find holes in it to make god exist again..but anyways)
until anyone can make a pocket universe and show us that after rapid expansion all matter then magically does the opposite , then 'explodes' again I'd much rather believe in the multi-universe theory. to me this explains how at least one universe can continue to exist as the mattter and (hawking) radiation emitted when galaxies slowly get sucked into their black holes eventually meets another universe (if you can really draw a distinctive line between the two).
just or thought
According to the BBT theory, so far the expansion effect has changed speeds multiple times, and for no clear reason. Until someone identifies a mechanism behind it, and/or what conditions dictate that it will display what behaviors, I think it would be kind of premature to be placing limits on what we can expect it might do in the far future. How do we know that this capricious agent which knows no laws or boundaries won't just roll the whole universe up into a scroll at 5 AM tomorrow?
And if we had knowledge of those mechanisms, then probably someone would have come up with an experiment that could be done to create and control the effect in a lab.
There is on this forum, unfortunately.
That's a lot like the Creationist claiming to be skeptical of evolution and emergence until a scientist can create life in a laboratory.
Nevermind that we can see spacetime expanding just fine outside of the lab.
I don't know what difference shoving it up a lab is supposed to make, other than give you an excuse for denial.
Tell me, in the very, very, very tight confines of the lab, how much SpaceTime could expand in this Deep Gravity Well on Earth?!
Note* Spacetime expansion is overwhelmed by gravity. Spacetime does not expand here. I'm skeptical that you did not know that.
And how are they going to measure it in that lab any differently than observed?
Misleading much?!
Mechanism of Gravity: Unknown.
"I'm skeptical about this stuff Scientists call gravity. Until 'they' show this so-called gravity attracting stuff in the laboratory..."
MAJOR FACEPALM GOES HERE.
Based on observation of the actuality around us instead of some very lame creationist excuses.
Why don't you go open up a jar of peanut butter and see if you find any new expansion in it.
i witnessed spontaneous expansion in an unopened dr pepper can once. Just missed neverfly's head.
That does not count as a Lab Experiment since we did not have a can of spacetime as a control group.
What we see is light red shifting. One possible mechanism for that shift would be expanding space. Seeing the light expand does not prove expansion unless expansion were the only possible mechanism.That's a lot like the Creationist claiming to be skeptical of evolution and emergence until a scientist can create life in a laboratory.
Nevermind that we can see spacetime expanding just fine outside of the lab.
My understanding was that gravity does not prevent expansion of space from happening. It only prevents the expansion from carrying matter with it as it goes.I don't know what difference shoving it up a lab is supposed to make, other than give you an excuse for denial.
Tell me, in the very, very, very tight confines of the lab, how much SpaceTime could expand in this Deep Gravity Well on Earth?!
Note* Spacetime expansion is overwhelmed by gravity. Spacetime does not expand here. I'm skeptical that you did not know that.
And how are they going to measure it in that lab any differently than observed?
Is that incorrect?
I'm thinking of the "Inflation Epoch". The expansion effect is supposed to have progressed at a speed totally different from its current speed during the inflation epoch. No explanation. "It just plain did" (.... "because we said so.") What is the evidence that it did? The model would break down if it didn't, so it must have.Misleading much?!
And as some other posters have mentioned, of course the scientific community's view is not unanimous as to whether inflation is the right tweak to give the BBT. Just that some tweak is needed.
I don't see how pointing that out could be the least bit misleading.
That actually has been done in a lab. The lab experiment that demonstrated it was the Cavendish Experiment in 1798. He managed to prove that lead balls in his lab were attracting one another.Mechanism of Gravity: Unknown.
"I'm skeptical about this stuff Scientists call gravity. Until 'they' show this so-called gravity attracting stuff in the laboratory..."
Cavendish experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I like to hope it's not such a huge requirement to ask for someone to do a similar thing with expanding space in 2013 or later. If it's real, I'm sure somebody will think of a way to test for and detect it.
Strange (the poster I was responding to) had just explained to me that the scientific community is not overwhelmingly unified in its acceptance of the BBT.
MAJOR FACEPALM GOES HERE.
Based on observation of the actuality around us instead of some very lame creationist excuses.
Why don't you go open up a jar of peanut butter and see if you find any new expansion in it.
I found it ironic that people on this forum are overwhelmingly unified. Clearly their perspective of dogged support for it does not reflect that of the scientific community.
That's not the only observation. Misleading, again.
And can you show a plausible mechanism for the homogenous redshift that is NOT expansion?
Opposes or overwhelms would be a better term. Whether spacetime itself still expands in the presence of matter or not I do not know. In local space, the effect is so very small, I doubt we could tell if spacetime was expanding but not affecting matter near it or not.
Agreed that these mechanisms are unknown- but that does not negate all of the other evidence.
(Note the link there^ )
Why not? Devise a method and present it here.
You mean aside from "tired light"? Or energy from light getting sucked into the vacuum energy?That's not the only observation. Misleading, again.
And can you show a plausible mechanism for the homogenous redshift that is NOT expansion?
Or maybe "it just does". Why is light getting redshifted for no apparent reason so much worse than space itself expanding for no apparent reason?
The other evidence is mostly stuff that could be true with or without a BBT, or which could be attributed to a cause that is less insane. That is so long as we don't insist on unifying three observations into one theory. If they must be caused by one thing - if it is just unbearable to sever them from each other and give them three explanations - then I guess the BBT is un-killable. I doubt any other theory will ever explain them all three at once like that.[Agreed that these mechanisms are unknown- but that does not negate all of the other evidence.
(Note the link there^ )
On the other hand, I don't know how God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost can all be one, and yet three at the same time. If I had enough faith, I wouldn't need to know how. I could just believe.....
But when we're talking about things that are more mundane yes - I prefer for there to be a mechanism. If only because the very reason the BBT was even proposed was because it offered a mechanism for something else. I don't want to play "The old lady who swallowed a fly." And then swallow a spider to kill the fly. And maybe a bit down the road we can swallow a bird to kill the spider.
If our mechanism doesn't have a mechanism then we're really back to square one. How is it better to start with an unexplained red shift, and then propose an unexplained expansion? What next? Shall we propose an unexplained expander?
I would think that an expansion would be a much more awkward thing to have in our universe than red-shifting light.
Why not? Devise a method and present it here.
It looks like the current value for hubble expansion is 69.32 km/s per MegaParsec or 69.32 km/s per 30.1 million trillion km/s
Or 2.24 Femto-meters per second at 1000 meters. The width of a proton being 1.6 or 1.7 femto meters. That *might* actually be measurable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femto-
According to this article - Apparently the LIGO detector looking for gravitational waves can detect down to the the Atto-Meter, so perhaps it could look for expansion when it's not busy looking for gravitational waves?
Distances shorter than 1 pm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes- because I said Plausible.
There is no demand of "no apparent reason." You made that assertion.
Carefully chosen wording to be misleading, again.
You are deliberately ignoring the evidence because theory does not align to your personal beliefs.
Until it is known, science does not assert wanton beliefs, sorry. So you can want one just like everyone else- no one will invent one just to make you feel better.
The LambdaCDM model still accounts for all observation and nothing you've said detracts from that nor have you put forth a better model.
Of course some things are still unknown.
That does not mean that that which matches observation gets scrapped because you dislike not knowing the answer to something. If you want invented answers to make you feel good, try religion.
Well, that's what you get for thinking.
Irrelevant. It clearly has been measured since you just gave a figure for it. You're doing your usual shifting of the goal posts.
You said you wanted it measured In the Lab IN A GRAVITY WELL. Don't shift the goal posts away from that just because you're caught in your error of assumption.
imagine(this is just an idea) the universe is a big ball filled with empty space,matter,antimatter,...How can you observe something outside of the Universe?
You really did not think this through, did you?
maybe it is possible to create another small ball outside of the original universe and on that way observe the original universe
however I know there isn't any reason why it would be this way.
(excuse me for my idea wich isn't fully sience and my bad grammar but I am at secondary school in belgium so english isn't my native language and I havn't learnt all the rules of fysics yet so I probably have made a somewat impossible situation)
I understand as I said it was just an idea
maybe there may be a problem with fysics in this way we are never fully sure what the "rules of the universe are"
I know you can always say that you are 99.99999...% schure of it but imagine the universe is the rules and outside of there you could start a new universe with new rules
another idea
| « Neurons as RC circuits | An Explaination Needed: Charges, Fields, Potentials etc. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
