The Big Bang Theory is Unscientific

I find the idea of the sequence universe----> BB->universe----> BB->universe----->BB->universe etc... particularly convincing, as it doesn't require a formless and dimensionless void to expand into; this sequence could be extended backwards and forwards indefinitely, and so is practically a steady state universe in itself.

Hmm. Some people have suggested we should dedicate ourselves to the task of creating some long lived form of matter which could last through the long empty period into the next big bang; I have lost the link for the moment, but I think it was called something like 'the message in a bottle' strategy; they did point out that a vast number of these bottles would need to be constructed, as most random fluctuations in the empty period would end up as black holes, destroying the message.

I think this would be a diverting hobby for the immortals of the far future faced with the end of our own universe...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No really, I must. See, the question is;

"How did the Universe come into being, and where did all the matter come from?"

... and you are just dodging that. You're hiding behind infinity, but infinity doesn't really exist now, does it? You haven't explained away _any_ of the concerns I have with SST, (inifinite Universe, Infinite mass, heat death, ether) either.

Your equator analogy is flawed btw, as that's a closed loop. If you were saying that a steady state Universe is a loop of time, and therefore not actually infinite, we might be getting somewhere. But I have a real problem with any model that has to uses 'inifinity' to explain itself. Of course, a loop of time has huge quantum mechanical problems, as I'm sure you're aware. There can be no dislocations in a wave function in quantum mechanics, all edge parameters must equate, so this Universe, if in a loop of time, would have to arrive back in a state it's already been in, to restart the loop. That means a certain physical state being _exactly_ the same as it once was, down to the momentum of the last photon.

That sounds like a singularity to me! Well done, you've convinced me the Universe was born out of a singularity!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry. Impossible scenario due to ever-increasing entropy. Would still need 'something before that'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ mercurio
Hum,
Wouldn’t entropy be reset (close to zero) when it when it went through a big bang phase (singularity) – I was thinking of a `budding` process for the creation of a new/multiple Universe.

< quote >
I find the idea of the sequence universe----> BB->universe----> BB->universe----->BB->universe etc... Particularly convincing, as it doesn't require a formless and dimensionless void to expand into; this sequence could be extended backwards and forwards indefinitely, and so is practically a steady state universe in itself.
< /quote >

Imagine an unbounded region that contains nothing, no time, no space no dimensions in it.
Now create a ripple in it, a wave (<i>that is <b>-1</b> and <b>+1</b></i>) that the sum of is <b>zero</b>… what has changed? The <b>Void</b> is still empty, i.e., <b>Void + (-one + 1) = Void.</b>

But there is no reason to get phased about the term Void.
The sequence <b>universe-----> BB->universe------> BB->universe------->BB->universe </b>
Still has to `enhance` into something (I proposed that perhaps we could call it `enhanced into` rather than using the term `expand`, as that implies an `outside` to our space-time – a limitation of language).

And if the sequence was <b>universe-> BB->universe-> BB->universe->BB->universe </b>, with the creation of every universe unable to `enhance into` the void (due, say to a lack of symmetry breaking energy), so that there is no mathematical `need` for a void; At the end of the day/equation it doesn’t matter…

A bit like Feynman's black box equations to describe (deal with) the different (infinite) particle interactions .
http://www.americanscientist.org/content/AMSCI/AMSCI/Image/MediumImage_2003728111726_546.jpg

Ie two particles -->[black box] --> two particles…


http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/26005

 

Ahhhh, me!

blobrana, you, eburacum45 and phlogistician support theories requiring infinity and it matters not whether it's a void before a BB, or a re-bounding universe. Yet none of you seem to be able to accept a concept of an ID-IT model which "begins" (a pun) with infinity. There are only two alternatives: either something was "created", or something has "always been" (in the sense of the universe).

The BB begins with a singularity without explaining exactly what it was or where it came from. Then the BB occured and immediately is encased in convoluted math using theoretical temperatures, particles, mass, time, etc., none of which can be shown to be beyond speculation. Therefore, the BB, whether single or rebounding, consists of theories piled upon theories attempting to justify other theories. It becomes a series of theoretical feathers supporting theoretical feathers. In the end, it does produce an unproveable "creation" which can be understood by most even if not demonstrable to any.

Perhaps a poor analogy to ID-IT, but mention of the points along a straight line being infinite comes to mind. One argument against ID-IT is that mass should also be infinite in an infinite universe. That's the equivalent of saying that all points along the straight line between the two points must be selected at once. That's wrong. Different points can be selected along the straight line at different times in the same sense that matter and energy are interchangeable as proven by Einstein and demonstrated with every nuclear detonation and every nova and every match flame.

Now my apologies, but I have to pause at this point to go to town for groceries.

 

You might be right, and then again, you might not. Entropy is an observed phenomenon of our universe; it may not apply on the larger scales we are talking about.

But now I am beginning to sound like a fringe theory-type person, so I won't take that line of reasoning any further...

 

It's all a big paradox....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Got the grocery shopping done, and did a good deed along the way, but I'll not bother anybody with that. Anyway...

I'll agree; I've seen it in my gravel driveway every time it rains. It shows up at the bottom where my drive meets the road!

And I might be wrong about ID-IT, too.

I'm simply offering what seems to me and some others to be a more reasonable alternative to the BB. We've been lost in this math game of "proving" a BB for so many decades, and invested so much in money and reputations, but really gotten nowhere. Physicists develop a few more theories and equations but can only claim to have moved only another, ever diminishing, sliver of time closer to something physicists desperately want to see. Too often, when we do that, we put on blinders so that we will see only what we want to see, even if it's not there. Why can't we take a step back and "think outside the box" as was suggested earlier?

 

@eburacum45
On the subject of entropy, i believe Stephen Hawking recently has managed to calculate (a fringe theory?) that black holes do not destroy everything they consume but instead eventually fire out matter and energy "in a mangled form."
If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our Universe, but in a mangled form, which contains information about what you were like, but in an unrecognisable state.
It was long believed that black holes destroy all traces of consumed matter and energy, as even Hawking long believed, all in stark contrast to subatomic theory that says such elements must survive in some form.
Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons but themselves eventually deteriorate and die. As the black hole disintegrates, through Hawking's radiation, they send their transformed contents back out into space-time…
To quote (I think) Hawking:
"<I>The black hole only appears to form but later opens up and releases information about what fell in, so we can be sure of the past and we can predict the future.</I>"
"<I>The Euclidean path integral over all topologically trivial metrics can be done by time slicing and so is unitary when analytically continued to the Lorentzian. On the other hand, the path integral over all topologically non-trivial metrics is asymptotically independent of the initial state. Thus, the total path integral is unitary and information is not lost in the formation and evaporation of black holes. The way the information gets out seems to be that a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon.</I>"

So if we take it that we know that the universe is expanding, and will continue expanding forever .
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
(link to WMAP probe data)

Then eventually (after the blackholes evaporate) the universe will contain “a mangled form” of entropy. A entropy that has been reset to zero.

 

I'm afraid not. The big bang starts out with a huge entropy to begin with, and it gets only bigger. A recollapse does not prevent that. Big problem with the whole scenario, as I said.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"The final entropy of the Universe as it approaches the Big Crunch singularity would be larger than the initial entropy of the Universe because of the heat added by nuclear fusion in stars, so a recollapse does not involve a decrease in entropy."

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#EBC

 

Hum,
Yeah, perhaps I didn’t convey what I meant when I said a `budding` process.
I was thinking about an aging universe full of blackholes, which progresses into a universe just full of radiation (With all the matter/energy having passed through black holes).

And that a `new` universe would spring from a quantum fluctuation from our heat death universe.

(The big crunch idea being discounted due to new findings from the wmap probe)

However, I think that it’s still an open question as to what information is recorded in the entropy emitted from a black hole.

 

I read Blobrana's Post of yesterday (it took all the patience i had ) and the kindest thing I can say about it is; It looks like some thing written by a government beaurocrat (did I spell that right)

Advise to Marv. We better quit this thread. It's impossible to discuss theories with some one who refuses to even consider the concpts of infinity and no beginning.
Maybe we should go to another threat and discuss politics or global warming.
Regards APOLO

 

Not demonstrable. Very true, which is why it is unscientific. Or at the very least, a "pipe dream".

Tell us about your good deed

 

Not demonstrable? Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4035747.stm

"The head-on collision of these particles not only replicates the conditions that existed just moments after the Big Bang, it generates other particles that can tell scientists more about the nature of the Universe. "

That will demonstrate things quite nicely I think. Real science, being done to validate a theory. That is why the BB _is_ scientific.

Physics breaks down at the singularity, the instant of the big bang, but if we can follow the trail to just after that moment, I think we have it nailed.

 

I HIGHLY doubt it can demonstrate "inflation" though. And since inflation cannot be shown with the scientific method, the big bang model is still hugely flawed.

 

Hum,
By the same logic
We can never demonstrate a supermassive black hole, therefore if it cannot be `shown` then the theory is flawed.
I suppose i could also add things like supernovas, the temperature of the earth’s core, mathematical terms like pi, etc...

All these things have to be deduced, from other scientific experiments/observations/calculations/probabilities etc...

So perhaps your right, we perhaps have to move away from the `strict empirical` scientific methods to more holistic methods.

@Apolo
Actually, I believe in a no beginning scenario for the universe.
In addition, I do not have a problem dealing with infinities.
However, I discount the steady state theory because there are better theories out there.
(Based simply on personal dislike of the incompleteness of that theory, Six times nine is Forty Two)
That is not to say that at some time in the future that theory could be reworked to explain what we observe in a simpler way, and replace the current BB theory.
Do not be so quick to judge.
Please re read my posts.

 

When I went to town yesterday, I came across a car with the 2-way blinkers flashing. So I stopped and asked what the problem was. The young boy driving was out of gas. So I took him home where he picked up a gas can, drove him into town to Johnson's Mini-Mart for gas. Took him back to his car and suggested he fill up when he gets to town.

All in all, it took maybe half an hour, but it got his vehicle off of a very dangerous part of the county road - headed uphill, on a curve of a two lane 22' road without shoulders to pull off onto to get out of the traffic lane. To pass his stalled car, drivers had to crest the hill in the oncoming traffic lane.

People down here in the Ozarks tend to be very helpful.

That is good news. However...

Every nova we observe, and every cloud birthing a new star demonstrates that the universe is very dynamic and constantly changing. Again, Einstein proved the interchangeability of energy and mass. Perhaps a definition, or at least a common concept, of "steady state" would be worth discussing. Mine would start with simply "unchanging". Comments?

That's passed through my mind, but at least for the time being, I've ruled it out. Education begins when you funally graduate from school. That's when your mind stops being filled like a vessel and the fire of your mind should be lit by the discussion of ideas. My 2¢.

 

Hum,
You mean `the universe is very dynamic and constantly changing, therefore unchanging`…?

The original Steady-State Theory states that the laws of physics were the same in the past as today.

How could we be sure? (Look at the spectra of stars?)

The laws of physics have to be the same in all parts of the universe, and at all times as well. The Universe would also be the same, always static, always contracting or always expanding.
Unfortunately, Olber's Paradox ruled out the first two by the simple Observation that the sky is dark at night.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/olbers_paradox.htm

Hoyle proposed that the decrease in the density of the universe caused by its expansion is exactly balanced by the continuous creation of matter uniformly condensing into galaxies that take the place of the galaxies that have receded AWAY from the Milky Way, thereby maintaining forever the present appearance of the universe.

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

Therefore, we still see an unchanging view of the universe…

To produce the matter, `negative energy` would balance out the expansion and condense out into new matter. Very similar to the virtual particles and false vacuums.

<b>So what do we see today?</b>

Unfortunatly, the distribution of deep space radio sources is not uniform.
A graph of the log of the number of sources at a particular brightness, to the log of the number of sources brighter than that brightness, should have a gradient of <b>1.5 (=3/2)</b>.
For radio sources we see the ratio is <b>1.8</b> showing that there are more bright radio sources at greater distance, and hence earlier times than would be expected for a steady state universe.
The conclusion is that the universe is evolving or at least changing.

The discovery of quasars in 1966, <b>also</b> provided evidence the constitution of the universe a few billion years ago was very different than it is today, and of course, the microwave background radiation (CBR), contradicts the steady-state theory.

We have an elegant theory that does not match up to observation.
in the future the theory may be `tweaked` to fit, but just now it doesnt.

[ added: quasi-steady state theory...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Hoyle.htm ]

If it’s wrong it’s wrong.

 

In which case anything is fair game, as long as it patches up a theory.


Aliens from the other universe started the big bang. This is a scientific theory. It is not demonstrable, just like inflation. I don't care. By this argument, it is still a valid scientific theory because it patches up preexisting problems.

 

Hum,
Well exactly..

i was also going to mention that it would be interesting to see if we can disprove the earth is flat.
However, i see you’ve played the alien card already...