Big Bang...and?

We all know about the usual popularly accepted scientific theory of the Big Bang

but hat i am interested in is, what OTHEr theories are out there. could you offer links for alternate views
i believe some theories see the universe as being one of many, and these BBs are goin on all the time

stuff like that. can this thread be s ource of alternative theories to the usually accepted on of A BB?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For alternate theories read www.thefinaltheory.com

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The "Big Bang" is strongly based on observed evidence. One, the galaxies (with occasional exceptions within local clusters) are all moving apart from one another. We infer from this that in the past they were closer together and that if we go back far enough, they were all bunched up in one place. This inference, that the Universe was once very dense and therefore hot, is supported by the observance of background radiation. This is all the Big Bang theory really states. Any alternative theory would have to explain these facts.

What you are probably looking for are various hypotheses as to how the Big Bang might have occurred.

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

~Raithere

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Raithere makes reference to the isotropic observation of the universe. Once you get beyond a minimal distance away from our own galaxy, all the other galaxies are moving away from us. The further they are, the faster they're moving. This corelation between distance and recessional speed is the same in all directions, which supports the big bang idea.

There's a problem though with using this as supporting evidence. We are limited in what we can see by what light has already reached us. We cannot see something if it is so far away that its light has not yet had time to get here. This creates a difference in size between the observable universe and the entire universe. The observable universe is about 27 billion light-years across, and the entire universe is about 150 billion.

While the observable universe is isotropic, we are unable to say that more remote parts of the entire universe follow the same pattern. It might, and probably does. But we do not know, and so we cannot use this particular piece of evidence as supporting evidence for the big bang.

 

It would still support the big bang but it's possible that the big bang and the observable Universe is only a 'local' event in a larger Universe. Once we're beyond the point of oberservation we move into the realm of hypothesis. That the "Bang" itself happened is pretty damn solid.

~Raithere

 

Whereis support for idea universe has diameter 150 light yr?

My impression is that as one looks back near the most distant observable universe the distribution of stars changes (new ones - first generation without elements heaver than iron which is formed in supernova events). This is consistent with a start in time as well as space. I.e. nothing more "beyond" the observable universe, not even empty space.

you said:

[/QUOTE] "This creates a difference in size between the observable universe and the entire universe. The observable universe is about 27 billion light-years across, and the entire universe is about 150 billion." [/QUOTE]

 

Billy T, I guess you missed this article a few months ago. Astronomers claim that the
universe is at least 156 billion light years wide, according to their evidence. I have
no idea myself, but here's the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm

 

Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory was discarded in the 1960's after the cosmic background radiation was discovered. This is used as one of the principal pieces of evidence for the big bang. Most of the other evidence can be explained by Steady State.
If the big bang ever bites the dust (and it is increasingly shaky) the paradigm shift may well take us back to a modified Steady State theory.

 

Thanks for the link I have been out of touch for a few months. Did not see it, but now think I understand what Maddad said, but I still have a quible with him.

Maddad also said "We are limited in what we can see by what light has already reached us. We cannot see something if it is so far away that its light has not yet had time to get here."

I think he is implying that in the larger space of the universe, (which now exist but can not observed b/c the light from it is still on the way to us), that things could be different with reguard to the uniformity of expansion. etc. This is false. The stuff in that (currently) unobserval part of of the universe is precisely the same stuff (much older now) that we are currently able to observe.

That now very distant stuff is not different in kind from itself, only older now. The fact that the "small" universe that we currently observe (It is all there was) is now much bigger does not open any possibility that in the currently larger, but currently unobservable universe, there is something different.

In 150 million years, observations will show that same stuff at age 150+15 years and then the universe will have a diameter of approximately 300 light yrs. Even when it is 300 light yrs big, it will still not have any part which we did not see today in its more youthful condition.

 

It would still support the bb . . . but it is possible . . .
Support means that the only possibility is the one required by the big bang. Since we definitely have a second possibility, the universe being non-isotropic on its entire scale, it is misleading to say our observations still support the big bang.

Why do we know it is solid? We know it is solid if the evidence that supports it is solid. When we discover that some of the evidence we are citing as solid is in fact not solid, then we are on a slippery slope. What is the danger that other evidence that we think is solid is in fact not solid? Suppose that the cosmic background radiation that we cite as solid evidence for the big bang also had an alternative possible explanation? Would you still say that the big bang was solid if both the isotropic observations and the CBR did not support it?

Suppose that the original logic was flawed that points to the big bang? It is an error of logic to say that a current process must always have been happening. Yet that is exactly what the big bang asks us to accept. Because the universe is expanding now, it must always have been expanding. A fundamental error in logic.

If isotropic observations are non-conclusive, other explanations for the CBR have not been ruled out, and following expansion back to a singularity all cannot be termed solid, then just what do you have that you do consider to be solid?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html
Or google for it. You'll find a ton of links if you use 156 billion light-years; I rounded down.

That is the hypothesis, and I believe that you are correct. Howsomever, our best guess is not evidence. We are unable to measure it, so we are unable to test the hypothesis, so we are unable to call it a theory. Sure, we can call it a model, but it is speculation, not evidence supporting any theory.

A major problem with the Steady State theory is the idea that if the universe is infinite in size and time, then no matter which direction you looked, you would eventually see a star. The night sky should therefore appear to be as bright as the surface of a star. Since it is not, the Steady State theory loses steam.

 

This, Olber's paradox, is only a problem if the Universe is is infinite in size and time and static. Steady State has expansion as a key element, so the paradox is resolved.

 

The evidence we have so far supports the big bang theory. If evidence comes to light that contradicts the theory or if a theory comes along that explains the observed evidence better or makes better predictions then, obviously, big bang cosmology will need to be modified or abandoned.

Actually, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what your point is supposed to be. I did not say there were no possible alternatives, I said, "Any alternative theory would have to explain these facts." Where do you have a problem with this?

Thus far CBR measurements are in agreement with standard cosmological prediction and conflict with alternatives such as plasma cosmology. The problem with the Big Bang theory is that it is dependent upon unknown factors such as "dark energy". Since they are unknown they leave a bit of room for the theory to "adjust" for various observations. Obviously, this is not completely satisfactory but, as I understand it, BB theory still provides the best explanation. If you have an alternative to consider, please present it.

~Raithere

 

You must have misunderstood what I said. To say that evidence supports your theory, you have to show that alternative explanations do not work. For instance, my theory is that my neighbor's dog drives his car. I have seen his dog in the car, and at other times I have seen his car moving when I could not see the driver. Since the dog driving his car is one possible explanation for the identity of the driver, and the evidence supports my theory, we must conclude that the dog is the driver.

This theory is silly because the evidence does not eliminate the possibility that the neighbor himself drove the car. This is the same reason that the evidence you cite does not support the big bang theory. There are possibilities other than the big bang that have not been eliminated.

 

Hum,
well your theory fits the observations. So it is a good theory.
You have not observe you neighbour (a relative to an <b>ape</b>) so there is no alternative.

However, most would not think like a <i>Martian</i> and conclude that your neighbour drove the car. That would be likely based on previous personal experiences of similar circumstances.
That unfortunately, makes for a bad theory foundation.…

 

Tch. This is not how science works. In fact, what you propose is impossible. Theoretically there are an infinite number of "possible" explanations, thus taking you an infinite amount of time to "eliminate" them all.

Sorry, no. Alternative theories require their own support. Only by demonstrating that they are a more accurate model of the evidence do they supplant pre-existing theories. Or if neither precedes the other the "best" explanation wins out. I suppose on occasion theories may come up equal in which case we keep testing to see which wins out.

~Raithere

 

It is obviously not how your science works. If you work science your way, then you allow all kinds of goofy ideas as solid that later come up rejected.

 

The big bang is probably the easiest theory ive ever heard...if it did really happen, why wont they explain it a little more?

 

It's not my science, it's just science. And yeah, that is how it works. There are tons of abandoned hypotheses for every one that makes it into mainstream science. Those that make it rarely go very long without being modified or amended and sometimes they are later refuted or replaced. This is how it works... and it works well.

~Raithere

 

They do. Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

And here are some alternatives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology

~Raithere

 

While peer reviewing your post, I decided to find empirical data for your claim. However, from rigorous and lengthy observations from an Italian bistro restaurant, I have found that cars usually have human drivers when the car is moving. To verify this, I called up some friends in the US and asked them to look at drivers. They too noted that all observed drivers were human.

My note of criticism is therefore that your theory may be true for one particulary instance, but it certainly does not conform for all cars. In fact, observations seem to contradict it.

I boldly go on to build my own theory and say that cars are generally driven by humans. Now, that theory predicts that cars would be designed in such a way that most humans should be able to operate it. In the name of science, I break into several cars and call my friends in the US to do the same. We both find that the interior of a car seems to fit nicely to an average human adult and does not conform to any dog race we have yet come across. My friends in the US and I eagerly publish that the predictions concerning the interior of a car appear to be valid. An interesting addition would be to examine your neighbour's car, and, in the hope to further solidify my theory, I would jump on the chance to do so.

With the broader scope of my theory, and with a more solid backing of empirical evidence, I have good hopes that the "human driver" theory will be favoured by the rest of the scientific community. Unless, of course, some one else finds a more elegant and powerfull model.

But to this moment, the Big Bang theory does hold the best deck of cards; it explains current observations and even earlier predicted results were verified when the tools became available. That makes it a very likely candidate.