Authenticity of The Big Bang

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Reiku, Oct 29, 2007.

  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    The Big Bang merit's quite a few problems actually. Also known as the standard cosmological model, it predicts the big bang nucleosynthesis, which measures the correct elements thought to pervade the universe. It also wipes out initial start-up conditions, through inflation. And inflation itself, points to a flat universe, and this compliments the observations on background microwaves made by the Wilkinson Anisotropy Probe.

    The theory of the big bang was created in 1930 by a Belgian astronomer, Georges Lemaitre. He described the universe to have came into existence around 10,000 million years ago - (today, inflation has added an extra 5,000 million years to this count - and he said that all of matter was contained in a ''primal atom'' (which Stephan Hawkings today exactly explains through his quantum cosmological theory), which Lemaitre called a super dense ''cosmic egg.''
    Critics of the big bang theory go back many years, including Lerner and Einstein... Fred Hoyle is also known for his anti-big bang attacks. It is a little ironic that Hoyle would go onto be the coiner of the term, 'big bang.' Thus, Hoyle approached the problem of big bang mathematically, and decided to bring in a new theory, called the 'steady-state theory,' or the 'continuous theory;' two other supporters at the time working alongside Hoyle in 1948 was Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold.
    In the standard cosmological model (big bang), the universe poured out from a single point, where space just began, and if we take relativity seriously here, this must also mean time; thus space cannot begin an existence, without time dragging along with it. But this is not so in steady-state theory. Instead, it opts. that space has no beginning, and thus this must also mean time. In this picture, the most accepted nature of the universe is said to be expanding, and we tend not to say the universe is contracting or static.
    How do we know the universe is not static?
    The answer to this question is solved in 'Olber's Paradox,' stating we know this because the sky is dark at night. The importance of this premise is that light would be trapped in a static universe, and it would slowly illuminate the universe. And it would do us no good to say the universe is contracting, because our universe is now suspected to be accelerating in it's expansion.
    Hoyle's theory proposes that the density of the universe decreases with expansion, is ''balanced'' wiith the continuous creation of matter forming into entire galaxies that replace spaces between receding galaxies. The matter, if you where wondering, is created from a negative energy reservoir; the reason why this energy needs to be negative, is to assure that no dilution of the source occurs.

    It also predicts that helium and hydrogen is produced inside supernovae... as you might know, the big bang states that these elements would have been created at the very start of spacetime expansion. Hoyle also discovered how carbon is formed inside of stars, through a special nuclear process involving three alpha-particles, made up themselves of two protons and two neutrons.

    Other theorists have come together to answer the big bang paradox. One major problem, is that in the standard model, nothing caused big bang; it just simply happened without cause. Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge, have proposed the 'Ekpyrotic Cosmological Theory' to answer the original cause of the big bang.

    The theory itself states that 15 billion years ago, big bang was just a marker in time; it turns out that the universe is much older - guesse is, if the Ekpyrotic theory is correct, then the universe existed for eons before big bang - possibly for trillions of years. Before big bang, our universe is said to have been in a frozen state. Then, guided by a primordial force, another brane smacks into our universe, creating a sea of electrons, protons, neutrons and quarks.

    This theoretical explanation to cosmology, first proposed at a cosmology meeting at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, describes an alternative to big bang theory coupled with inflation, which is a point when the universe required to expand faster-than-light. Whilst many scientists find the theory a challenging proposal against big bang, other scientists believe the Ekpyrotic theory to be somewhat something of a dream, a fantasy of sorts. If you think of it though, big bang is more of a fantasy, because big bang occurred without any precursor. Viola! The mystical just happened.

    In this theory, our universe is a brother to many other universes, floating about in a void of nothingness. The makers of Ekpyrotic theory use, not the conventional 11 dimensions of M-Theory, but rather specificities these brother universes as moving through the fifth dimension. By allowing these universes to flow through the fifth dimension, answers why they can never by visible, simply because light cannot travel through the fifth dimension. Howsoever, gravity can couple to other universes, and it is for this reason, all universes are said to form one giant superstring, floating around in a void of nothingness.

    Ekpyrotic theory is not the first complicated theory to presume the universe has cycles. In 1965, American astronomer Professor Allan Sandage adapted the big bang theory, and developed the 'pulsating universe theory,' or (PUT). He believed that the universe expanded and then contracted; a cycle that continues forever. He hypothesized that the expansion and contraction of the universe took 80,000 million years. This kind of theory doesn't really say that the universe has an infinite lifetime, but rather an infinite amount of beginnings and ends.

    Since we cannot ever observe how the universe began, we cannot really make assured predictions of it. All we can do is make educated assumptions on how the beginning may have prevailed through observing today's initial condition. We are however, by no means closer to cracking the mystery of how our universe began, or didn't (as the case may be), using the steady-state theory, big bang theory or Ekpyrotic theory.


    Sure, not everyone is happy with big bang; but everything in nature comes from something which must be a very small size. Since we are dealing with particles, atoms, subatomic particles, we find that the universe could have indeed extrapolated from a single point, which may have been singular, and it may not have been.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Personally, i have not a problem with big bang, but rather the age of our universe. I believe our universe is about 150 billion years old.

    Shocker?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    no
    just propose a model that supports that estimation
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    First of all, the model of the cosmos is self-evident. Some superclusters should take up to 80 billion years to form. That is just to start off.
     
  8. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    another 70 to account for
     
  9. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I know...

    The universe grew quite old before light first emerged. The very beginning of our universe has been come to be commonly known as the 'first chronon' - even though it sounds like a Star Trek villain it is in fact a time period. It is also called the 'Planck time' - which is 5.3 x 10^-44 seconds.

    A chronon is the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of one second. Accordingly, a billion chronons passed, before there was any light in our universe. Thus, if our universe had started with the size of a cell, it would mean there was not enough time to start the universe to assure that all background temperatures in space would show different frequencies - but they don't. It all has the same temperatures.

    To eliminate this paradox, physicists brought together a dubious 'inflationary phase' - the need for inflation was to start the universe on a much smaller scale - like the size of a subatomic particle so that light could reach those corners of space and expanded faster than light. Light travels at 299,792,458m/s or 186,000 miles per sec. The model, mediated with rapid expansion seemed to wipe away the problematic situation - it also added another 5 billion years onto the age of the universe.
    However a new problem persisted. Apparently, our universe should show initial start-up conditions that where never wiped out - we would still see evidence of such conditions today. No one has yet solved this problem with clarity - some have brought into the picture 'parallel universes' to wipe out these conditions.

    Though, it still stands that Big Bang is still a theory - nothing is set in stone - and not everyone believes that everything originated with a tremendous spill of energy and matter via a Big Bang. Some believe that everything came around by other means. Even Einstein once said, concerning the 'Hubble Shift' - (the Hubble Gravitational Red Shift showed that all planets and stars where rushing away from planet Earth, proving that everything was in fact moving away from each other);

    'There does arise, however, a strange difficulty. The interpretation of the galactic line-shift discovered by Hubble as an expansion leads to an origin of this expansion which lies only a billion years ago, while physical astronomy makes it appear likely that the development of individual stars and systems of stars takes considerably longer. It is no way known how the incongruity is to be overcome.'

    Yes, Einstein did indeed have problems excepting the Hubble Red Shift. Einstein, before the discovery of the Hubble Red Shift did not believe the universe was expanding. He said, 'it was my biggest blunder,' and passed in physics history as nothing but a curiosity. However - his protest might not have been in vain - some cosmologists say that certain supergalaxies must take around 80 billion years to form!

    Thus, many cosmologists are painfully aware of the time scale posed by the age of our universe, and posits much doubt on the validity of the Big Bang - whilst many observables in the universe seem to compliment the theory, just as physicist Lerner writes;

    'Present evidence shows that the Big Bang initially introduced to explain the Hubble expansion, does not make predictions that correspond to observation. It is clear supercluster complexities arise and by the more recent confirmations of large-scale structures. This returns us to the problem; what caused Hubble expansion? The cosmological debate will not be resolved until this basic question is answered. The question of the Hubble remains unanswered until an adequate theory is found. Far more theoretical and observational work is needed.'

    While complex structures like some certain supergalaxies take tens upon tens of million years to form, the issue of Hubble Expansion might never be fully understood. Just as Einstein informs us, until a more appropriate theory comes along, we can but stand in protest. Perhaps we might even find the long sought-after GUT - the grand unified theory. This mathematical theory, supposed to be only a few notations long would explain everything. In order to do this, some mathematicians are attempting to combine relativity theory and quantum mechanics together. If such an equation existed, it might even be simple enough that we might even have it as logos on t-shirts or even on school pencil cases!

    I, however, do not believe we will ever discover the Unified Theory - i simply do not believe that all of the universes complexities will [allow] itself to be deduced so easily by humans.

    But here is the problem. We measure the density of the universe, and the timescale required to localize a homogeneous backscape of temperatures. Then we estimate the age of the universe, which, without inflation, would only be 10,000 million years.

    Can such a hypothesis be reliable? How can we even be sure that the observable universe is what there is? Indeed, scientists have already postulated that there are something like 10^80 particles in the universe, but this is based on our observable universe. We can see the very edge of our universe to be rushing away... But acceleration might even be misunderstood. Indeed, there has even been theories suggesting that our universe has already contracted!!
     
  10. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    no such thing
    concurrence and approximation
    thats the best we can do
     
  11. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Well, approximations are flawed in my mind... very flawed. I already have another theory on what acceleration really is...
     
  12. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    meaningless
     
  13. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    i must commend you for making this stuff accessible to laymen...less than laymen in my case

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    What do you mean... do you mean me translating science into language suitable for the laymen?
     
  15. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    yes reiku yes
     
  16. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Thank you. Now say that in ''My Work'' thread in free thoughts.
     
  17. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello

    A flaw in Olber's Paradox is the assumption of a static rate of time flow. If mass affects the rate of time flow then areas of little mass will experience more time and will have a lower energy (CMBR) when compared to areas of mass in the universe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I never knew that, thank you.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Reiku:

    Olber's paradox doesn't rule out a static, finite universe. It does rule out a static, infinitely-large universe full of stars, though, because if the universe was full of stars then any direction we looked our line of sight would end on a star sooner or later, so the night sky would be bright (like staring at the sun) rather than dark. An expanding, infinite universe is ok, though, because light from very distant stars is either red-shifted so that we do not see it or has not had time to reach us since the big bang.

    It would be more accurate to say that the standard big bang model can't specify a cause.

    Why?

    Actually, light was not free to travel until long after that, because the early universe was too dense: particles were continually absorbing and re-emitting light.

    Just like Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory. Or the Ideal Gas Law is a theory. Or the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a theory. Or the theory of evolution is a theory...

    Everything useful in science is "just a theory".
     
  20. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    ''Olber's paradox doesn't rule out a static, finite universe. It does rule out a static, infinitely-large universe full of stars, though, because if the universe was full of stars then any direction we looked our line of sight would end on a star sooner or later, so the night sky would be bright (like staring at the sun) rather than dark. An expanding, infinite universe is ok, though, because light from very distant stars is either red-shifted so that we do not see it or has not had time to reach us since the big bang.''

    Not according to Hawking. Who do you think i'm going to listen to. I'll give you two guesses.

    ''It would be more accurate to say that the standard big bang model can't specify a cause.''

    I'd agree with that as well.

    ''“ Personally, i have not a problem with big bang, but rather the age of our universe. I believe our universe is about 150 billion years old. ”

    Why?'' ''

    Personal. Just me. I don't like the age. Is that ok with you?

    ''Actually, light was not free to travel until long after that, because the early universe was too dense: particles were continually absorbing and re-emitting light.''

    This is something like what i said. If you want me to be very very accurate, light didn't emerge from sapectime until a billion chronons had passed.

    ''Just like Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory. Or the Ideal Gas Law is a theory. Or the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a theory. Or the theory of evolution is a theory...

    Everything useful in science is "just a theory.'' ''

    Yes, i know.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Reiku:

    You think Hawking says something different to me? Please post what Hawking says on this topic, then, and we'll take a look.

    So you just guess or base your views on gut feelings?

    That's fine with me as long as you don't pretend you're doing science.
     
  22. Klippymitch Thinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    699
    Some theory's start with a logical sequence of self questioning of the universe.
     
  23. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    James, i can't find the source yet. You will have to wait.
     

Share This Page