Notices
Results 1 to 52 of 52
Like Tree27Likes
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 6 Post By shlunka
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 5 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 3 Post By Implicate Order
  • 2 Post By Ninja Pancakes
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 2 Post By kojax

Thread: The Big A Critique of the Big Bang Theory

  1. #1 The Big A Critique of the Big Bang Theory 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4
    So the Big Bang Theory is nearly universally recognized as the most likely origin of the universe...at least in the mainstream scientific community. Other theories either don't hold much weight or are downright scorned (Intelligent Design/Creationism). Ask any science teacher or college professor and 99% will say that the Big Bang Theory is the only explanation for the origin of the universe. Many textbooks, high school and college, teach the same. Why is this? While I admit there is definitely proof to suggest the Big Bang happened (Cosmic Background Radiation, Redshift, abundance of H and HE) there are significant problems with the theory. I am going to discuss 3 big ones.

    1. What came before the Big Bang?

    This is a serious question. If space and time did not exist, how could everything appear from nothing? What caused the extremely condensed state right before the Big Bang? Where did the matter come from? Astronomer Paul Steidil says, "Whit the entire universe the size of a pinpoint, normal physical laws as we know them must have been drastically different. There is no way scientists can determine what conditions would have been like under these circumstances. One could not even tell matter from energy." Contemporary science proves that matter doesn't just appear. The first law of Thermodynamics says that it can't be created or destroyed. Also, what force condensed all this matter into such a tiny area? And why? What then overpowered this condensing force to create such an explosion or a "Big Bang"? I can't really understand why the vast majority of scientists accept such a vague theory.

    2. The Horizon Problem

    Radiation coming to us from the east is uniformly the same temperature as radiation coming to us from the west. In order for this to have happened, some mixing must have taken place to homogenize it all. The radiation coming to us from the east has taken about 15 billion years to get here. Likewise, the radiation coming to us from the west has taken roughly 15 billion years. Therefore, the mixing must have taken place 30 billion years ago. Of course, the universe is only 15 billion years old.

    3. Absence of Monopoles

    Professor Andrew Linde (Stanford) says, "...the standard big bang theory, coupled with the moder theory of elementary particles, predicts the existence of many superheavy particles carrying magnetic charge - that is, objects that have only one magnetic pole." These monopoles should have emerged very early after the creation of the universe. In fact, they should be as abundant as protons. However, not one monopole has ever been discovered. Where did they all go?

    These are three serious problems with the Big Bang Theory. Why then, is it featured so prominently by the scientific community and academia in general? I'm arguing that the Big Bang Theory is nowhere near as airtight or plausible as it is portrayed by scientists/the media. Anyone think differently?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,917
    [QUOTE=da_landonator;4895801. What came before the Big Bang?[/QUOTE]

    This is the same fallacy as creationists use to argue that evolution must be wrong because we don't (yet) know how life arose.

    I can't really understand why the vast majority of scientists accept such a vague theory.
    Perhaps because the theory isn't at all vague in the areas where it applies.

    2. The Horizon Problem
    Inflation is the usual answer to this. There are others (some of which would also address the previous point).

    3. Absence of Monopoles
    Inflation might also address this. A "grand unified theory" or maybe even a theory of quantum gravity might answer it as well.


    These are three serious problems with the Big Bang Theory. Why then, is it featured so prominently by the scientific community and academia in general? I'm arguing that the Big Bang Theory is nowhere near as airtight or plausible as it is portrayed by scientists/the media. Anyone think differently?
    Scientific theories are not falsified by answers of "unknown" but by data that shows them to be wrong. It is not enough to find questions that it can't answer, you need to find examples where it produces the wrong answer.

    And there isn't currently an alternative theory that explains all the evidence.


    pyoko and Flick Montana like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Like Strange said, science is all about providing the best possible answer. If you have something more satisfactory than what the Big Bang Theory posits, feel free to leave it here for scrutiny.
    pyoko and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post
    So the Big Bang Theory is nearly universally recognized as the most likely origin of the universe...at least in the mainstream scientific community.

    Wrong. Although popsci articles often leave that impression (or say so explicitly), the BBT is about the evolution of the universe. The maths we have at present break down at t=0, and thus we have no scientific theory of creation.


    ...there are significant problems with the theory. I am going to discuss 3 big ones.

    1. What came before the Big Bang?

    This is a serious question.
    Sure it is. It just poses no problem at all for BBT. Why do you think it does? It's like criticising Newton's theory of gravitation for not explaining the popularity of Hello Kitty.

    2. The Horizon Problem
    Really? I suggest you do some actual reading on the subject. You seem not have read anything by Guth. Or Andrei (not "Andrew") Linde.

    3. Absence of Monopoles
    This doesn't falsify BBT. No scientific theory claims to be complete. The lack of monopoles might yet be explained by something else. If you are going to take the position that a theory is no good if it can't explain everything, then no theory will ever be good.

    These are three serious problems with the Big Bang Theory.
    By my count, there are two non-problems, and one fun puzzler. No "serious problems" with BBT.

    Why then, is it featured so prominently by the scientific community and academia in general?
    Because BBT is by far the best theory of cosmology we have at the present time. Vast quantities of evidence are explained quantitatively by it. No falsifying observations have emerged. And no other theory has come close to BBT in successfully explaining and predicting.


    I'm arguing that the Big Bang Theory is nowhere near as airtight or plausible as it is portrayed by scientists/the media. Anyone think differently?
    No scientist says "airtight". But anyone looking at the actual evidence judges BBT to be our best current theory. Is it complete? Is it the last word? I know of no scientist who declares BBT to be a fait accompli. You've constructed a straw man, then you compound the error by failing to cite a better theory than the BBT.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post
    Absence of Monopoles
    This is an issue of quantum field theory, not BBT as such.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4
    2. The Horizon Problem


    "Inflation is the usual answer to this. There are others..."

    Inflationary Theory is far from being proven or validated. The biggest evidence for Inflation is Gravitational Radiation, but researchers led by Lawrence Krauss found out that other mechanisms (such as "symmetry breaking) can cause Gravitational Radiation. Inflationary theory is far from being credible enough to account for the Horizon problem which, again, is directly contradictory to the established age of the universe. I have essentially the same response for your comment that inflation or some other vague theory could explain the absence of monopoles.


    "Scientific theories are not falsified by answers of "unknown" but by data that shows them to be wrong. It is not enough to find questions that it can't answer, you need to find examples where it produces the wrong answer."


    One example of data that directly contradicts the Big Bang Theory is the age of globular clusters. According to some research published by NASA,
    the age of these clusters (which contain the oldest starts we have found) are actually older than the established age of the universe that contains them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4
    @tk421


    "Sure it is. It just poses no problem at all for BBT. Why do you think it does? It's like criticising Newton's theory of gravitation for not explaining the popularity of Hello Kitty." [regarding the problem of what came before the Big Bang]


    I would argue that it poses a huge problem for BBT, as the two are inextricably linked. A theory is incomplete at best if it can’t explain the origin point for the phenomenon it is trying to explain. Andrei (sorry about the typo in my first post) Linde comments on the issue saying, “The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first : the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began— still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.” This obviously relates directly to BBT. In order to be considered as a complete and possibly valid for the origin of the universe, it must explain the inception point.


    "Really? I suggest you do some actual reading on the subject. You seem not have read anything by Guth. Or Andrei (not "Andrew") Linde." [In response to the Horizon Problem]


    Check out my response to @Strange. I mention some additional info/data relating to the Horizon Problem


    "This doesn't falsify BBT. No scientific theory claims to be complete. The lack of monopoles might yet be explained by something else. If you are going to take the position that a theory is no good if it can't explain everything, then no theory will ever be good."


    I would argue that a scientific theory isn’t complete or a viable option if it relies on the hope that somebody might discover proof in the future. The Big Bang Theory inherently predicts that monopoles should be as abundant as protons (obviously an insanely huge number), yet no proof for monopoles have been found. Now monopoles might be found in the future, but in its present state, The Big Bang Theory is too vague and unproven to be taught as fact by professors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,298
    I smell the foetid aroma of crank. Please learn something about how science works and stop posting your ignorant rubbish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,917
    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post
    Inflationary Theory is far from being proven or validated.
    So what. That doesn't contradict the big bang.

    One example of data that directly contradicts the Big Bang Theory is the age of globular clusters. According to some research published by NASA, the age of these clusters (which contain the oldest starts we have found) are actually older than the established age of the universe that contains them.
    Citation needed.

    Obviously, if this were true there would be headlines all over the place. I seem to have missed that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,917
    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post
    A theory is incomplete at best if it can’t explain the origin point for the phenomenon it is trying to explain.
    Gosh. Maybe the theory is incomplete. That would be a real shocker. I bet no one saw that as a possibility. </sarcasm>

    Still doesn't contradict the theory.

    The Big Bang Theory is too vague and unproven to be taught as fact by professors.
    <sigh> Do you know anything about science?

    Theories are never proven. Theories are never taught as fact.
    pyoko likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I smell the foetid aroma of crank. Please learn something about how science works and stop posting your ignorant rubbish.
    Don't trust PhD, he only has 16 posts.
    KALSTER, Strange, RedPanda and 3 others like this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post
    2. The Horizon Problem


    "Inflation is the usual answer to this. There are others..."

    Inflationary Theory is far from being proven or validated.



    You're obviously not a scientist. One does not "prove" a theory. One talks only of evidential support. Inflationary theory is well supported by the evidence. It's our current best explanation.

    The biggest evidence for Inflation is Gravitational Radiation,
    Really? Citation, please. (Your claim is nonsense) All the cosmologists I drink beer with say that it's the exquisite conformance of the CMBR to a blackbody spectrum. And that's what they say before the beers get to our table.

    ...but researchers led by Lawrence Krauss found out that other mechanisms (such as "symmetry breaking) can cause Gravitational Radiation.
    Since no direct measurement of gravitational waves has ever been carried out, you're making no sense here.

    Inflationary theory is far from being credible enough to account for the Horizon problem which, again, is directly contradictory to the established age of the universe.
    So, we're just supposed to take your word for it, huh? No, thanks.

    I have essentially the same response for your comment that inflation or some other vague theory could explain the absence of monopoles.
    The absence of monopoles is not a problem for inflation or BBT cosmology directly. It is actually a problem for QFT, as Markus has already pointed out. Pay attention, man!


    "Scientific theories are not falsified by answers of "unknown" but by data that shows them to be wrong. It is not enough to find questions that it can't answer, you need to find examples where it produces the wrong answer."


    One example of data that directly contradicts the Big Bang Theory is the age of globular clusters. According to some research published by NASA,
    the age of these clusters (which contain the oldest starts we have found) are actually older than the established age of the universe that contains them.
    You are really quite out of date. There is no age paradox.

    It is painfully obvious that you are not particularly knowledgeable about this subject. Yet you assert strongly as if you possessed some expertise. Another subject for Dunning and Kruger's next study, apparently.

    (There is also an amazing correlation between displays of such arrogant ignorance and the inability to master the intricacies of the quote tag.)
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,917
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Don't trust PhD, he only has 16 posts.
    But he has 1085 likes.
    tk421, RedPanda, Neverfly and 2 others like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,298
    Now that's a good batting average. (sorry as a cricketer everything comes down to averages)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Big bang theory in a nutshell:

    Everything seems to be receding from us and doing so at a faster pace the farther away from us it is. Only explanation for that is that space itself is expanding. There is nothing credible that contradicts this.

    So, if you run the movie backwards, you end up with everything in the universe, i.e. all forms of matter and space being concentrated at one point in the past, roughly 13.7 billion years ago. That's the basics. If you can't provide any credible reason for this to be false, you can't really dent the Big Bang theory.



    The rest of it is all about HOW that might have happened and how it made a universe that looks like ours.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post
    I would argue that it poses a huge problem for BBT
    No it doesn't. You see, the BBT is a model of the evolution of the universe, not its origin. You are right of course in saying that the two are closely linked, but so far as BBT is concerned, its domain of applicability is strictly limited to what happened after the BB event. Modelling the initial conditions will require a more advanced model.

    A theory is incomplete at best if it can’t explain the origin point for the phenomenon it is trying to explain.
    The BBT is complete within its domain of applicability, but incomplete in the domain of a "Theory of Everything". That is true for all currently accepted theories in physics, so no surprises here.

    One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing?
    Oh, I wonder about such things everyday, trust me However, I am not as foolish as to expect BBT to answer these questions - this will require at the very least a consistent model of quantum gravity, perhaps even a full TOE.

    The Big Bang Theory inherently predicts that monopoles should be as abundant as protons
    No, this is a result of the QFTs used in the Standard Model. Nothing inherently to do with BBT.

    The Big Bang Theory is too vague and unproven to be taught as fact by professors.
    No - actually, it explains the large scale observational data at our disposal extremely well. Of course there are loose ends to be tied up, but that doesn't preclude BBT from being the best model of the universe we have currently available. Then again, science does not stand still, and there is a lot of very active research going on in modern physics.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I was too busy being a dramaqueen, you lot beat me to the fun on this one...
    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post
    Anyone think differently?
    Is that not what you were expecting to find? Thread title suggests it was those that don't think differently who you were looking for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Of course there are loose ends to be tied up, but that doesn't preclude BBT from being the best model of the universe we have currently available. Then again, science does not stand still, and there is a lot of very active research going on in modern physics.
    Nailed it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post
    I'm arguing that the Big Bang Theory is nowhere near as airtight or plausible as it is portrayed by scientists/the media. Anyone think differently?
    I think there is a general acceptance that most of the popular theoretical models such as The Standard Cosmological Model, The Standard Model of Particle Physics, General Relativity and even perhaps Quantum Mechanics may be incomplete but are regarded as incredibly successful in their respective domains of applicability. As others have pointed out in this thread, in order to stretch their domains of applicability we either need further unifications of these models, or alternatively we may require a re-write if we are seeking a model that is applicable for every domain.

    1. What came before the Big Bang - As mentioned by others this is not really a weak spot of the Big Bang Theory as this question lies outside the current domain of applicability of BBT which explains the evolution and not the origin of our universe. The question really lies with the current research being undertaken in an attempt to unify QM and GR. Who knows, if time and space are emergent properties of Quantum Gravity, then your question relating to 'if space and time did not exist' may need to be further pushed back to a deeper question relating to our universe's origin regarding what 'nothing actually is' in the context of our universe.

    There have been a number of attempts at answering this by the likes of Wilczeck, Krauss, Barrow etc. Even Feynman had a view on this. He demonstrated that the total gravitational energy equates to the total rest energy of the universe suggesting a zero-energy universe. Even Misner, Thorne and Wheeler suggested that there is no such thing as the energy of a closed universe according to GR as if the universe is 'all there is' and therefore is a closed system, there is no external ability to weigh it. If we take seriously the notion of a zero-energy universe and we also take seriously the law of conservation of energy, we really do not need to consider 'what came before questions'.

    There are therefore a growing number of physicists such as Steinhardt (particularly from the string theorists camp, but also Loop Quantum Gravity Camp and ground-up theoretical models) who are proposing oscillating universal models that faithfully preserve the key observational phenomena associated with the Standard Model of Cosmology but avoid some of the extensions to the theory such as the hypothesis of inflation. Some of these ideas are pretty powerful as they propose alternate models that pick the 'best bits' from the existing model and then extend them through alternate hypothesis that can be falsified through future observations. Some of these alternative explanations however fail to address important considerations such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but there are a few emerging alernatives that appear to have a bit of muscle particularly if they adopt oscillation around an equilibrium point such as those that hypothesise that the gravitational field offers a 'spring' to drive this oscillation. Where we frequently have problems is in dealing with universal models that commence and/or end in singularities, but oscillating models avoid this probelmatic arena provided they can account for entropy.

    2. The Horizon Problem - This was a key conundrum that sat fairly and squarely in the Standard Cosmological Model prior to inflation being proposed to address this issue. It is certainly a very useful idea that kills a number of birds with one stone such as the flatness & horizon problem but there are alternate proposals being considered at the moment. For example some points of contention are emerging with inflation such as recently discovered anomalies in WMAP results. Not enough to reject the notion that the CMB was smooth and featureless, but enough to question the assumption. Questions such as why the 'Dark Flow' towards the Great Attractor, the Great Void of Eridanus, the 'Axis of Evil' etc. The Inflationary Model may ultimately be able to accept these anomalies, but..and there is a growing but.....it may not prove to be sufficient to fully explain them. Once again, some of those oscillating models have a convenient way of removing the need for inflation given their ultimate 'eternal nature' providing the requisite time for thermal equilibrium to be achieved across the universe. But it is important to note that any suitable alternative must be able to at least address all the strengths of the most popular model of the day.

    3. Absence of Monopoles - Once again as Markus has mentioned this is a problem of Quantum Field Theory. Given that the major theoretical models we have at our disposal today cannot be applied to all universal domains, it is perhaps premature at this point to merge these theories. Further extensions are probably required before we could unite these theories such as The Standard Model of Particle Physics and The Standard Cosmological Model.

    :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post
    Radiation coming to us from the east is uniformly the same temperature as radiation coming to us from the west. In order for this to have happened, some mixing must have taken place to homogenize it all. The radiation coming to us from the east has taken about 15 billion years to get here. Likewise, the radiation coming to us from the west has taken roughly 15 billion years. Therefore, the mixing must have taken place 30 billion years ago. Of course, the universe is only 15 billion years old.
    I don't think it takes 30 billion years for two expanding fronts to become 30 billion light years apart from each other. So this doesn't seem to be an issue with the theory. Personally, I have my own curiosity about the Big Bang. Why/how/what causes us to imagine the big bang by the cosmic background radiation? How does the abundance of Hydrogen have anything to do with it?

    Can someone explain to me how this came to be a theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja Pancakes View Post
    Why/how/what causes us to imagine the big bang by the cosmic background radiation?
    One of the perdictions of the theory was that, at one point, the universe would have been opaque to light. Then as it cooled enough it would become transparent and the electromagnetic radiation would be able to travel large distance. Then, as the universe expanded, the "temperature" of this radiation would drop.

    Both the black body spectrum and its temperature exactly match prediction.

    Inflation and the CMB - C.H. Lineweaver
    xkcd: Science


    Can someone explain to me how this came to be a theory?
    Evidence. Overwhelming evidence.

    Evidence for the Big Bang
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    238
    Well, it gets interesting already.


    • The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
    • BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
    • The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

    Thanks for the link!
    RedPanda and tehpanta like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja Pancakes View Post

    • The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
    • BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
    • The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
    Correct on all three counts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 The Big Spot Theory 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    Hi D-L, I too am new to the site and like you, I have a lot of questions which I'm trying to find answers for. I have my own ideas of how the BB started and that it why I am using this forum to disprove my own "silly" ideas/reasoning. Personally I think you do throw out some great questions. And may I add, your questions did not come across as someone trying to disprove a theory, in a bid to promote creationism/intelligent design. You JUST seem to have some good questions. Personally, having tried to get my head round the BB theory I feel I am travelling down a path in which more questions arise than answers. Those being The Multiverse, 11 Dimensions, M Theory etc. Not because I don't believe, but more because I need/want to know the how's and why's. Perhaps our universe was like a new spot/zit, that appears on a 14yr olds face one morning. It wasn't there yesterday but its there today. And using that analogy, perhaps the bacteria and the spot can be considered to exist before the BB and our universe it what is left on the mirror of the bathroom, after being squeezed into existence. My quest for knowledge continues... However I hope you agree, the BB Theory holds more weight than that of Intelligent Design. I may find it hard to understand String Theory, but that's far easier than having to understand how someone can tell me to believe a book that is said to be the word of God, yet was written almost 200 years later by humans with a political agenda. Well anyway, I hope you find your own answers but before I go, just a quick heads up.... The answers not 42. So long and thanks for all the fish!
    Last edited by Anne Honymous; November 25th, 2013 at 12:49 PM. Reason: OK, I couldn't resist adding the last line...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Anne Honymous View Post
    Personally, having tried to get my head round the BB theory and feel I am travelling down a path in which more questions arise than answers (The Multiverse, 11 Dimensions, M Theory etc.
    Note that none of those things (which are speculative and/or hypothetical) are necessary to understand the big bang model.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Not because I don't believe, but more because I need/want to know the how's and why's.
    In that case textbooks are your friends in the first instance, and we will be here if you need any additional help.

    Perhaps our universe was like a new spot/zit, that appears on a 14yr olds face one morning.
    Err...ok. That is certainly a very unique perspective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    Thanks Strange. I do understand what you've said. I merely mention the likes of a multiverse etc. because I investigate one answer and then find other things to research. It goes on and on... You may be able to help me with a quick question my sister asked me when I told her about the idea of the multiverse... If every scenario is played out, does that mean in 1 universe, there is an omnipotent being that looks down and judges everyone? I told her to Google it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Anne Honymous View Post
    Thanks Strange. I do understand what you've said. I merely mention the likes of a multiverse etc. because I investigate one answer and then find other things to research. It goes on and on... You may be able to help me with a quick question my sister asked me when I told her about the idea of the multiverse... If every scenario is played out, does that mean in 1 universe, there is an omnipotent being that looks down and judges everyone? I told her to Google it!
    There are several different multiverse theories. I don't know much about any of them. This sounds like the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics: basically the idea is that when a random event could happen (a radioactive atom decays or not) then you can consider that in one universe it did and in another universe it didn't. So all possibilities happen, but in different universes.

    To take the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment as an example. The Copenhagen interpretation is that the cat is both alive and dead until you look at it. The Many Words interpretation (if I understand it) is that in one universe it is alive and in another it is dead. But you won't know which universe you are in until you look.

    So, no: no omnipotent being necessary (or desired ).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    I wish someone would strangle that bloomin' cat!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    [/QUOTE] That is certainly a very unique perspective.[/QUOTE] I bet that's what they said to Galileo. I know he ended up spending the rest of his life under house arrest in Florence but I guess that's not too bad. Have you ever been to Florence? Full of tourist. Being made to staying at home would have been much better than trying to get to work each day along the Ponte Vecchio. Trust me, its a nightmare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    238
    Isn't Schroedinger's Cat, a critique of quantum mechanics?

    Like, highlighting how ridiculous the notion is of the cat being both alive and dead?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja Pancakes View Post
    Isn't Schroedinger's Cat, a critique of quantum mechanics?

    Like, highlighting how ridiculous the notion is of the cat being both alive and dead?
    I think that is correct.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    238
    So Copenhagen interpretation is ridiculous?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja Pancakes View Post
    So Copenhagen interpretation is ridiculous?
    Some people think so. But superposition of states is a real effect, just described different ways in different interpretations.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    238
    What is the evidence that super position is a real effect? I mean, how can we undeniably say that superposition is a fact?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,298
    The double slit experiment for a start.

    And these Quantum superposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for an encore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    238
    Sorry, I thought that just illustrated that we don't quite undertsnad what is going on, but we can make decent predictions based on statistics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I agree. It cannot be said to be a fact, though the observed effect can be. There is more there to learn.
    The caution comes in when folks want to wax speculatively about what is going on, without adhering to the Scientific Method.
    Ninja Pancakes likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4
    Thanks for your response Markus. I would disagree with your comment on the monopoles. One inherent part of Grand Unified Theories (which are of paramount importance to the Big Bang theory as they are the only plausible theories that explain how nuclei in the present universe were created in the big bang) is that at very high temperatures the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces were indistinguishable from each other and unified into a single force (monopoles). Therefore, according to GUT's, which are integral to the Big Bang theory, in the moments of intense heat that supposedly occurred immediately after the Big Bang, many such monopoles should have been created. Monopoles are an inherent part of GUT's, and without GUT's, the viability of the Big Bang Theory is significantly reduced. While monopoles may not be inherent to the Big Bang theory itself, their existence is of tremendous importance to its validity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post
    Monopoles are an inherent part of GUT's, and without GUT's, the viability of the Big Bang Theory is significantly reduced.
    Which GUT are you referring to ? Current cosmology is based only on the Standard Model, which is not a GUT; there are quite a number of candidate theories for grand unification, most of which produce monopoles, but some of which do not. Which one were you thinking of ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I used to never pass up a chance to criticize the BBT. But now I think I realize most physicists kind of know it isn't guaranteed to be the final word. It's just a working theory for now.

    It still bugs me when I hear people describe it matter of factly as "the way things happened". It's certainly one possibility. The other, more likely, possibility is that we don't have a complete picture of the laws of physics themselves yet. But just saying "we don't know yet" doesn't allow us to continue studying space.

    The BBT does allow us to continue studying space, and probably everything we find using it will still be valid (with a few adjustments) when we get the complete set of laws. So at least it's a good tool (for now....)




    Quote Originally Posted by da_landonator View Post

    2. The Horizon Problem

    Radiation coming to us from the east is uniformly the same temperature as radiation coming to us from the west. In order for this to have happened, some mixing must have taken place to homogenize it all. The radiation coming to us from the east has taken about 15 billion years to get here. Likewise, the radiation coming to us from the west has taken roughly 15 billion years. Therefore, the mixing must have taken place 30 billion years ago. Of course, the universe is only 15 billion years old.
    I have to ask: why would the mixing be 30 billion years ago? Both CMBR's (East and West) were traveling toward us simultaneously, not one after the other. 15 billion years should work just fine.
    Neverfly and Implicate Order like this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I used to never pass up a chance to criticize the BBT. But now I think I realize most physicists kind of know it isn't guaranteed to be the final word. It's just a working theory for now.
    Given the validity of Einstein's geometrodynamic law, I think we can be reasonably confident that the BBT as a whole is an accurate model for the evolution of the universe from a certain point onwards, since the basic relations for that evolution fall right out of the field equations; it is no coincidence that the respective metrics where some of earliest exact solutions to the equations, dating back to the 1920s.
    However, I agree that major questions remain, mostly with regards to what went on before that point in time when BBT becomes a good model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I used to never pass up a chance to criticize the BBT. But now I think I realize most physicists kind of know it isn't guaranteed to be the final word. It's just a working theory for now.
    Given the validity of Einstein's geometrodynamic law, I think we can be reasonably confident that the BBT as a whole is an accurate model for the evolution of the universe from a certain point onwards, since the basic relations for that evolution fall right out of the field equations; it is no coincidence that the respective metrics where some of earliest exact solutions to the equations, dating back to the 1920s.
    However, I agree that major questions remain, mostly with regards to what went on before that point in time when BBT becomes a good model.
    There are still after questions, Markus, even if the model is very well supported and these questions are heavy hitters.
    Addressing them does not bespeak the downfall of science, however.
    We have no idea what is causing expansion nor why it's shown an acceleration - nor why some acceleration is not evenly distributed. It is as possible that finding more data toward those answers will provide support for the Lambda CDM model as it will that it might cause need for updating the theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    There are still after questions
    I agree, there are.

    We have no idea what is causing expansion
    Expansion itself is a natural consequence of the geometrodynamic law, the Einstein field equations; it is an intrinsic tendency of space-time itself. The field equations on the other hand are a direct consequence of locally conserved energy-momentum, coupled with the axiom that said energy-momentum can be associated with the "Cartan moment of rotation", an identically conserved geometric quantity on a differentiable manifold which is connected to intrinsic curvature. I would therefore argue that we do understand the reason for expansion fairly well, at least mathematically.

    To illustrate this - even a universe completely devoid of all matter and energy would still metrically expand; an example would be the Kasner universe, which is an exact vacuum solution of the EFEs. In fact, it takes the presence of an appropriately chosen cosmological constant to counteract that tendency and obtain a static solution - that was the original reason why Einstein proposed such a constant in the first place. Choosing different values for that constant also gives us an explanation for accelerated expansion rates.

    nor why it's shown an acceleration
    To be more precise, the question is why there is a non-zero cosmological constant present ( which is why the expansion is accelerating ), and, even more importantly, why the value of that constant differs from the value calculated by QFT methods by many orders of magnitude. It's one of the central outstanding problems in current physics; something, somewhere, is very wrong ( or at least very incomplete ) in our models - the question is : what is it ?

    Still many questions to answer...and no, the answer is not aether.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Expansion itself is a natural consequence
    So is gravity- But we do not know what causes expansion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Still many questions to answer...and no, the answer is not aether.
    There is no evidence of aether or any other crank claims. But it's still important to remember that current models don't have all the answers or explanations. That a crank will use that to try to validate himself is merely a fallacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I used to never pass up a chance to criticize the BBT. But now I think I realize most physicists kind of know it isn't guaranteed to be the final word. It's just a working theory for now.
    Given the validity of Einstein's geometrodynamic law, I think we can be reasonably confident that the BBT as a whole is an accurate model for the evolution of the universe from a certain point onwards, since the basic relations for that evolution fall right out of the field equations; it is no coincidence that the respective metrics where some of earliest exact solutions to the equations, dating back to the 1920s.
    However, I agree that major questions remain, mostly with regards to what went on before that point in time when BBT becomes a good model.
    If Dark Matter truly exists, then Einstein's GR is not in need of any adjustment. If it doesn't, then GR is valid the same way that Newton's theory of gravity was valid. Over a certain range of possible observations.

    It may become necessary to add a transformation when long distances are involved. I don't know what that transformation is. I certainly don't think any of the existing proposals for a transformation (like MOND) are likely contenders. But it looks likely that distance affects the model in some interesting way.

    I wonder if perhaps the Cosmological constant will be where it happens? Maybe the constant is only constant over a short distance? Has it ever been tested over long distances? It was always the biggest point of contention, even in Einstein's day.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,917
    You probably meant to post this in your own thread rather than someone elses.
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...al-theory.html

    You seem to be proposing some sort of steady state universe. This was the predominant view in the past. But the fact that galaxies are moving apart (an d several other lines of evidence) contradict this. So how do you explain the fact that everything is moving apart if the universe has always been the same?

    I'm not even going to bother with the stuff about "intelligence" as you obviously have no evidence for it.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,298
    This isn't science it's "making stuff up".

    Can some one stop this loon posting in the hard science forums please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Glenn, I am moving your posts out of the main sections to your thread. Your ideas are very far from mainstream, which is what this section is for. Don't post in this section again please. Thanks.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Last chance Glenn. Next post in the main sections will secure you a suspension. You have your own thread for this here: http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...al-theory.html
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    89
    How about THAT!?

    I just got here this morning and already I am kicked out for unorthodoxy!

    Oh, well, I will probably like it better to associate with unorthodox thinkers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn Jacobs View Post
    How about THAT!?

    I just got here this morning and already I am kicked out for unorthodoxy!

    Oh, well, I will probably like it better to associate with unorthodox thinkers.
    You are not kicked out, you are moved to an appropriate section. We have created your very own thread for you in the New Hypothesis section, linked here (again): http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...al-theory.html

    We have different sections for a reason. If you want to take part here you need to stick to the rules.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn Jacobs View Post
    How about THAT!?

    I just got here this morning and already I am kicked out for unorthodoxy!

    Oh, well, I will probably like it better to associate with unorthodox thinkers.
    You have not been kicked out for unorthodoxy, you have been asked to stop posting ignorant nonsense in the hard science areas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. What do you think of this new ''theory'' about the Big Bang?
    By wegs in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: December 28th, 2013, 06:33 AM
  2. Big Questions About the Big Bang Theory
    By suziwong in forum Links
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 30th, 2013, 01:41 PM
  3. My Big Bang Theory
    By Travis Meyers in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2013, 11:49 AM
  4. The Big Bang Theory
    By emygirl691 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 29th, 2012, 05:01 AM
  5. The Big Bang Theory
    By Raluyen in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 6th, 2012, 09:48 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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
  •