New Big Bang hypothesis - physics-based

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by zenbabelfish, Jan 27, 2007.

  1. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    To begin, this is not my area of expertise – in fact I do not have one.
    The hypothesis I am about to put forward originated in a library book about astrology; the name of the authoress eludes me. For this reason I shall call it the ‘Somebody Theory’ until it is reclaimed:

    What we refer to as the Big Bang was a point where equilibrium ceased. Part of the universe started to vibrate at a frequency below the speed of light – the universe we see before us; the other part of the universe vibrated at a frequency greater than the speed of light and this is what is referred to as dark matter.

    Would it be possible to test this hypothesis?

    This may be better suited to the pseudo-science forum but from my basic understanding of simple physics I thought it might be worth some expert comment. Many thanks.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    the speed.... of photons... waves... is constant...

    the only thing that varies is wavelenght... and so... waves per sec.

    more waves per sec... = more energy.


    the speed does not vary with frequency...

    10 hertz... or 10 billion hertz.... the waves travel at the same speed.

    more hertz... - more energy transmitted per photon or per sec....

    -MT
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Let me guess, you're going to say something anyway?

    Actually, I am kind of insulted that you would use astrology to draw conclusions about the natural world...

    Yes you were right. This is not your area of expertise. This would not explain why dark matter is concentrated in the outskirts of galaxies.

    Exert comment: I don't really understand what a vibrating part of the universe means. And big bang theory really needs more than a "simple understanding of basic physics".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Obviously.
     
  8. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    It seems as if I was quoted out of context.
     
  9. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Ben, I would say that your thread is good example of why scientists have a reputation as arrogant and why science is often fruitless...but then despite your epitaph as 'actual physicist' you are unable to read.

    1) "Let me guess, you're going to say something anyway?"

    In my opinion the fact that someone is not an expert does not preclude them from creating a hypothesis...the onus is on the 'expert' to provide the null hypothesis using the scientific method rather than sarcasm and statements after the fact.

    2) "Actually, I am kind of insulted that you would use astrology to draw conclusions about the natural world..."

    This is not an astrological idea - I never said this - the idea was written in the introduction to an astrology book. You have erroneously assumed this and I challenge you to show how the mechanics of how this hypothesis relates to astrology.

    3) "Yes you were right. This is not your area of expertise. This would not explain why dark matter is concentrated in the outskirts of galaxies."

    Just because it has not yet been established that this hypothesis can explain why dark matter is concentrated in a particular region does not mean that the theory is void. In fact the only reason that I haven't yet explained this is that I wanted to approach this topic from first principles and expand it to include other cosmological theories as the thread proceeds.

    4) Exert comment: I don't really understand what a vibrating part of the universe means. And big bang theory really needs more than a "simple understanding of basic physics".

    Ok lets rephrase the hypothesis: c = speed of light. Part of the universe exists in a state above c and part below c.
    Discuss.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2007
  10. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Thank you for taking the time to explain where my terminology is wrong.

    I'm assuming that 'speed' is the cycles per second wavelength that characterises matter.

    I'm sure this is heading towards the psuedo-science forum but in fairness I think we deserve an explanation of the null hypothesis.
     
  11. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Fair enough---I always have been a smartass. But imagine I walk in to a Star Trek convention, and say "I've never seen this show, but it sucks". People work all of their lives to be able to understand some little sliver of the universe in terms of physics, but the internet is full of cracks who think that they know as much as anyone else, and get to come up with whatever range of goofy illogical theories and have them taken seriously.

    Someone with a rudimentary knowledge of "the basic principles of physics" is in no position to support any claims that they make. The early universe is not governed by basic principles that you can find in a Wikipedia article---the problems faced when gravity is strong are incredibly complex and perhaps insoluble. And I am insulted that people treat these intricate and beautiful ideas, these complex problems as if it were a discussion about politics or sports. And I won't deny that it is insulting to have someone who is admittedly not an expert tell me that he (or she, to be fair) knows something of how the universe works at its most fundamental level.

    Making claims that "scientists are arrogant" is partly true---we are arrogant because we have done the calculations, and we have seen the data. I mean, suppose I told you that 2+2=5. You could show me why it isn't true. You could argue that even integers are a discrete group, which preserves group addition, so that there is no way to add two even integers and get an odd integer. You could draw pictures of apples or fish to prove your point. But at the end of the day, I could dismiss all of your arguments as arrogant and continue posting at one of the hundereds of similar discussion forums on the internet. YOU know 2+2=4 because you have done the calculation, and you accept that no other outcome is logical or reasonable. But even though you are an expert of adding, it is ok for me to come up with whatever new rules I want and expect to have them taken seriously. So yes, I am arrogant. I am arrogant because I have spent six years of my adult life working 60-80 hours a week to understand physics.

    Instead of starting your post with "I was inspired by an astrology book", or "This is not my area of expertise, but I'm going to prove all of science wrong", you should perhaps start by understanding what it is you are talking about, perhaps by asking some questions. What if I went in to the biology boards and said "I have produced an alternative theory to evolution that was inspired by the Bible." I would be laughed at and rightly so.

    Well, I would say that unless your theory contains such a description, then it is void anyway. Specifically, your dark matter should either be evenly dispersed throughout the universe, or completely separate from regular matter, both of which are eliminated by experiments. If it is evenly dispersed, you would have to use some late time dynamics to argue why the dark matter is concentrated in the halos of galaxies.

    Why have you chosen those parts of the universe that "move faster than c" to be the regular matter and "those that move slower than c" to be dark matter? The only difference between dark matter and regular matter is that the two don't seem to interract, except gravitationally. If there are dark matter particles, "dark matter" is just a subset of "matter". (There are some proposals which modify Newton's laws at long distances, or put the dark matter in parallel universes.)

    What first principles? Newton's Laws? The first principles which govern the early universe are not clear at all. Understanding the regime where gravity is strong is the hardest problems that humans have ever tried to solve, but you just toss these ideas around because you have some superficial knowledge of physics. GR doesn't apply when gravity is strong. In fact, no one even knows how to do physics in such scenarios.

    The problem is that I am extremely confused about what this actually means. To measure velocity you have to have a reference frame, and I don't know how you could define a reference frame to measure the "speed of the universe". I mean, what are we measuring the speed of? Whether or not it would even be possible to define "speed" in your proposal would be up for debate.

    It also seems to imply that the dark matter was moving faster than the speed of light, which certainly cannot be the case.

    You are implicitly assuming that space-time existed before the big bang, which is not at all obvious. In fact, we have good reason to believe that space-time is an emergent phenomenon, because the data coming from the cosmological experiments seems to fit so nicely with the simpest inflationary models. At least to me this is evidence that there was no space-time before the big bang. You could convince me otherwise (i.e. Ekpyrotic universe models) if you could show that the data currently doesn't rule your model out.

    I don't want to discourage you from thinking about physics---I mean, that's what keeps me in business. But you have to understand that pronouncing your theory so resolutely is very insulting.
     
  12. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Hey Ben, do you think that gravitational time dilation, early in the expansion of matter from the initial singularity, could have been in play such that the distant stars need not be millions or billions of years of age?
     
  13. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Hi Ben.

    Agreed.

    Without doubt.

    This seems a bit odd. The "I am insulted" part that is. I would expect "I am amused" or "I am saddened" or something along those lines, but certainly not personally insulted. No one appears to be attacking you personally.

    Again, same comment as above.

    I agree completely with this sentiment. As an electrical design engineer with a moderate physics background, I too find it "amusing" when someone with a new "theory" and a degree in hydroceramic sterilization technology (AKA dishwashing) decides to argue with me.

    You are correct, but in fairness, zenbabelfish seemed only to be presenting an idea in a fairly humble way and in no way claiming to "prove" all of science wrong.

    I think this is more what he was after. Some expert comments.


    Which is what we do here from time-to-time. Toss ideas around with no real claim that they are anything but random, inexpert musings.

    He seems like a decent fellow and I don't read anything as "resolute" as you seem to. I think it's great to have members who are experts in physics here. We need that. How about going a bit easy on the the guy? There are members here who actually deserve to be blasted this way (if you hang out, you'll know who they are).
     
  14. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Let me handle this one.

    No.
     
  15. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Insulted is maybe too strong, but I am definitely not amused. It seems that, in todays culture, some people make the claim that "Science is under attack by conservative Christians who want to have intelligent design taught in school", but in the same breath proclaim that modern physics is wrong and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. If you claim that GR is wrong (for example) and Evolution is right, you are a hypocrite.

    Yes I should appologize. I really do enjoy physics, and do not typically respond in such a manner. Truth be known, I was drunk last night and wandered on here before I passed out.

    Anyway, I hope that whatever opinions I have offered will satisfy Fish's curiosity.
     
  16. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Thanks for getting my back.
     
  17. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    IAC---what does "Gravitational Time Dialation" mean? It seems like you are referring to some Lorentz transformation or something, but it is not clear how one can implement Lorentz transformations at a singularity. For example, the metric doesn't exist at a singularity, and because you need a metric to do a Lorentz Transformation, I don't think that such a statement makes any sense.

    And I am not 100% familiar with the big bang time-line---I don't know if there WAS any matter right after te big bang.
     
  18. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Early in the event horizon collapse, early in the expansion, gravitational time dilation would have been enforce, until the event horizon collapsed to nothing.
     
  19. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Thank you for all your comments - its great to have some expert advice on this laymans approach as I believe that good science should be communicable. I know I'm a bit cocky so I deserve the odd rebuke and I have intended no offence to any scientist.
    I consider my knowledge basic in the context of experts but I have been taught a bit more about physics than has been implied; I have learnt much here and value the scientific objections to 'my theory' and also that someone has taken the time to respond. Live long and prosper: my faith in science as a means of explaining the universe is restored.
     
  20. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Aww now I'm tearing up.
     
  21. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    What? "Event horizon collapse"? Are you talking about before the big bang?
     
  22. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
  23. Ayodhya Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    391
    IAC is espousing his ridiculous viewpoints in the context of "Creation". All of his events are in reference to Creation, because he does not believe in science.
     

Share This Page