Big Bang Theory Is Bang Wrong

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by amraam, Nov 12, 2001.

  1. amraam Registered Member

    I have been thinking for quite a loooong time about the big bang theory....and I have come up with a brief question that looks like it could positively eliminate the big bang it is...

    Facts first........the scientists have proved that the universe is not spherical like we originally thought it to be, but is rather flat. This fact will be validated by any astronomer/scientist.
    Now think of this, if the big bang theory held good, assuming that there was a point of singularity and there was a sudden explosion with so much of energy released....that it went on to form the universe as we view it today. (This is partly what Dr. Stephen Hawking talks about in his 'A Brief History of TIME').

    Since the explosing originated from a point of singularity in space-time, the wavefront of the explosion would have HAD to be spherical and the universe which expanded would have to be spherical in shape.....but looking at the facts stated first.....our universe is flat, NOT how can the BIG BANG THEORY be right ?

    I feel that there is hardly any contradiction to my point of fact I challenge ALL YOU READERS to disprove my point !
    Prashanth P
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Not necessarily a contradiction

    Hi amraam,

    There doesn't necessarily have to be a contradiction with a flat universe and the big bang. The problem you could have with "flat" is that you're not looking in the 4-dimensional picture: with "flat", scientists mean that it can look spherical in our 3-dimensional space, but that it smoothly "flattens" out as time evolves (I am sure you have seen the pictures in Hawking's "The Universe" that show the time axis and a two-dimensional projection of space). So yes, the explosion could have been spherical in terms of a 3D space, but that's not the entire description.

    Anyway, I can only advise you to look at the pictures again (they're somewhere around page 158 (I own a Dutch translation)).


  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Re: Not necessarily a contradiction

    Hi amraam,i agree with crisp,have you ever heard of flatland analogy?a flat piece in simple terms is just a part of a curve,we perceive the world through our capabilities,(we can look in 3d fashion)and probably explain things in that way,anyway i dont know much about the universe being flat,i would like to hear more.bye
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. amraam Registered Member

    U got me thinkin crisp

    Yeah I guess U have a point.
    You just got me thinking really deep.
    Apart from the metaphysical reasons which I can't relate to concerning the origin of the universe.
    But....I shall be back with a couple of other ideas that are in my head...but no words to put them here.
  8. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Hi amraam,

    No problem, it's only by thinking these things over and over again that you can get a complete understanding of how they work.


  9. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Hi, Crisp ...

    Or would like them to work.

    Take care

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

  11. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Flat Vs Spherical

    If I can add my tuppeneths here.

    When Cosmologists say the Universe is flat they are referring to its geometry not its topology, or shape. That is, if you draw a sufficiently large right angled triangle the sum of the angles will be 180 degree. Draw the same triangle on a curved surface and the sum of the angles will not be 180 degreees. Think of a curved surface as a "flat" sheet curved in some way.

    The topology, or shape, of the Universe is a wholly different thing. Current thought is that is a unbounded hypersphere in 4 dimensions. In other words if you travel in a straight line for long enough you end up coming back on yoursellf. There is no 'boundary' as such so you 'wrap around' and come back to your starting position eventually. This means the Universe is effectively infinite in spatial extent but finite in time with a beginning.
  12. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Re: Flat Vs Spherical

    Hi THED,

    It"ll be exactly 270 degrees.please for information refer to :
  13. amraam Registered Member

    To thed

    Hi Thed

    Well, when you talk about travelling in space and coming back to the same point of origin, yes, I am very well aware of it, but I would like to point out that it is just a hypothesis and nothing more.

    In fact, there is absolutely no proof that there was a point in euclidean time that the universe started. For then questions of metaphysical origin would arise.

    You are talking about going in a straight line along the equator / great circle and ending up at the same point. But I think you should also look up the Mobius Strip analogy which seems to predict a slightly different outlook regarding hyperspace.

    Yes, I agree that I got the spatial thing wrong....but what is intresting is to note that a lot of people just assume that there was a beginning of time......I mean....unless you question the answers....we are never going to break the UNIVERSAL LAW !!!
  14. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member


    I will agree that the exact nature of the Universes topology is a hypothesis. The good thing is that this is being experimentally tested in the next few years. The exact nature of the cosmic microwave background should reflect the topology. As with all science a negative result casts serious doubt on the prevalent theories.

    As for no evidence for the Universe having a point of origin I will disagree with you. The cosmic microwave background is a direct result of the Universes expansion. The resdhift of remote galaxies implies the Universe is expanding. On the grounds we see expansion then by reversing the clock it stands to reason that at one time everything was closer together. In fact, it implies a moment of creation.

    Yes, this raises philosophical questions, like what did the Universe come from. Lacking any evidence or any theory of what happened in the early Universe this becomes a metaphysical question with metaphysical answers at the moment.

    My take is that we are lacking enough knowledge and inadequate theories to answer this at the moment. But, it is mine, and sciences, belief that there is a physical explanation for how and why the Universe came to be. It will just be a very long time before it is found.
  15. ThorDenBrage Registered Member

    Hello Thed, good day to you.

    I disagree with you on the subject of the universe having a origin (neither in space nor time). Even if the Universe is expanding, which is uncertain, then projecting the expansion backwards in time all the way back to a mathematic point (singularity), will violate the very dogma behind the physics used to calculate this origin.

    The most fundamental principle in physics is the consevation of Energy. Imagine any formular. Or perhaps try the most famous of them all: E=m*c^2
    Then try to imagine Energy spontanously being created on either side. The relationship between Energy and mass then breaks down. Yet the standard Big Bang model suggests this to have happened.
    Furthermore: Any physics require time and will never be able to work with t=0. The simple equation above has the time hidden inside the "c". Setting t=0 will result in c=0, which again results in E=0.

    (I am aware of the argument that some believe that on micro scaled physics (quantum scale), "stuff" can be created from nothing as long as this "loan" is paid back shortly after. Some people suggest that this could also happen on macro scale (cosmos). But as far as I have read energy is required to take this "loan", so on macro scale the "Before-value" must have been non-zero for this argument to work. And however you turn this: Whatever was before the Big Bang a potential like that cannot be called Nothingness. (I recently heard admitted in a lecture about antimatter, that pysicists have set the "Before-value" to zero because quote: ("It looks nicest that way" .. "if it is not set to zero we do not know what else it could have been. It might as well have been 8, 9 or 900. There would be no way to tell"). Now this is not a bad physicist that is saying stuff like this. Contrarily he admits flaws in the theory which only few others do. That night I went home happy, my head buzzing with thoughts.))

    As for the model of an expanding Universe, the main reason should be the redshift observed from the distant objects we see. If this redshift is due to the Doppler effect then OK, the
    wavemakers are moving away from us (not necessarily space itself). But there could be other reasons for the redshift. I am not a phycisist, but recently I stumbled upon the Compton scattering.
    Check this site out and find what it says about the Compton scattering (index to the right):

    The following may be wrong:
    [When a photon collides with a free electron, the electron recoils and the photon looses energy lowering its frequency. The wavelength increases.
    Now imagine light has travelled far bumping into electrons along its way, then it will have lost some of its energy. The further it has travelled, the more energy it will have lost. This could very well explain the surprising discovery that the more distant the objects are, the more redshifted they are. (This discovery has commonly been interpreted as the Universe should be expanding at an accelerating rate.)]

    As for the philosophical part of the supposed World Creation theory "Big Bang". I have long been wondering what would have happened if the scientific explosion had happened in a shall we say Buddhist culture. They believe in and are not afraid of Infinity. They would have interpreted the observations made differently.

    To me it seems that todays physicists either want to believe in creation or cannot shake off their western cultural heritage increasing the age of the Universe with every new telescope built.
    But humans are used to having Finity in its life and we have no experience with Infinity. It might just be a psychological trait.

    That is all for now.

    Have a nice day.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2003
  16. RDT2 Registered Senior Member

    Re: Re: Flat Vs Spherical

    Only if you draw it with 1/4 of each of three geodesics.

    An earlier posting also used the word '(un)bounded' - be careful, there are two meanings to 'bounded': that there is a boundary and that there is a maximum distance between any two points. A sphere is unbounded in the first sense and bounded in the second.


  17. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    @ ThorDenBrage

    I think that superficially it does seem as if there is a violation of some of the basic laws during the BB.

    But if you remember that gravity is the negative of matter and that TIME is the counter to space...All of the `things` in the universe are a products of symmetry breaking. During the BB there was probably a billion times more matter created (with a similar amount of anti-matter), Space and time (as we know it)were probably the product of the splitting off of GRAVITY from the other forces at the BB.

    I suppose that the universe COULD have started with a positive/negative value...(but why? this generates another question)
    We have theories in place that work out without adding a starting `number`...(?)
    The simplest (and aesthetically appealing) answer would be that the total sum of the universe IS zero...
  18. apolo Registered Senior Member

    After reading the above posts I have to agree with both amraam and thor
    the BB theory have never actually been proven, but it is accepted by most of the public and the scientific comuninity as gospel.
    Let me point out a few facts, not generally known.
    The birth of the BB theory was born when Hubble discovered the redshift
    in the light comming from distant galaxies. this was initially interpeted as an indication of both velocity and distance, e.i. the larger the redshift the greater the distance to the object and the faster it was moving away from us. But Hubble had great doubt about the redshift beeing an indication of velocity. In all the papers and books Hubble published (exept one in 1929) he insisted on using the terms distance and APPARENT velocity. See " Oservational Aproach to Cosmology" 1937 by Edvin Hubble. He knew there was a fudge factor in his calculations that he could'nt explain, but he did not beleive it indicated velocity. In only one paper in 1929 did he say it was an indication velosity and linear distance. And that is the one paper that is quoted in every astrnomy book since then.
    If Hubble was right, we dont have an expanding universe. unless we can prove it by other means.
  19. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    1) The conservation of energy is not a fundamental law of physics. It is correct only on average. It is useful only for macroscopic systems.

    2) Time is not an absolute quantity. There is no "asbolute zero of time" in any physics formulation. You're free to consider any instant you'd like to be your zero. Some of the most fundamental conclusions of quantum mechanics and relativity indicate that physics is invariant in a shift of time.

    3) Heisenberg uncertainty is completely adequate to explain the beginning of the universe. It fits just fine into our mathematical models of physics.

    4) Compton scattering cannot explain redshifting at all. Scattering events (even just a couple) completely randomize the direction of the photons. This would make the universe look to us like an isotropic blur of light arriving haphazardly from every direction. This isn't true. Furthermore, Compton scattering doesn't necessarily decrease the energy of photons -- it can also increase it. Also, 21-cm radiation studies indicate the intergalactic medium has nowhere near enough matter in it effectively scatter any light moving through it.

    5) It is proper scientific conduct to avoid pressing your own conclusions. A good scientist presents facts and avoids making leaps in vacuo. Hubble's modesty doesn't mean the big bang never happened.

    - Warren
  20. ThorDenBrage Registered Member

    Hello chroot. Good day to you.

    1) The Universe is a macro system. Thus the consevation of energy aplies to it.

    2) I know that one freely can set the the time factor to zero in equations, but in doing so one implies that there exists time before it is set to zero.

    Example: take this train. It is moving with v = x km/h.
    At t=0 h it has moved 0 km.
    At t=1 h it has moved x km.
    at t=2 h it has moved .....

    But the train did exist before t=0 and it has a value at t=0. This is what I meant.

    The followers of Big Bang theory actually do believe in the "absolute zero". They always talk about the "beginning" of Time (and space). "There was no time before Big Bang" and "Time was created in the Big Bang" are often heard from them, when they talk about the "first" moments.

    3) I know of Heisenbergs uncertainty only by formular. Never applied to Big Bang. Could you explain it to me?

    4) I actually do not believe much in the Compton scattering to acount for the redshift myself, I just stumpled across a way how light can loose energy along its way. It was a few weeks ago and I really haven't thought that much about it. (And I did not write that it was correct). Besides is not that important.

    Could you please explain to me why space itself is supposed to expand and how come it isn't just the wavemakers which move in space. I've forgotten the argument(s).

    5) I agree with you that "it is proper scientific conduct to avoid pressing your own conclusions".

    If the Universe (or just the stuff in it) is expanding then: True one can assume that the stuff in it was once closer. But to go all the way back to a point, not stopping at Anything (just Anything!) untill one has his Creation, _is_ to press down conclusions. And all this just because of the reversing of movement in time.

    In this theory why couldn't the matter in the Universe have been the size of a football when it suddenly reached and passed its threshold value, triggering an implosion/explosion/whatever, which caused stuff (once again) to move away from each other?
    The reason why this couldn't have been, is that then it might as well had been the size of a planet or a tennisball. It cannot be known.
    It might not even be all matter/Energy in the Universe that was comressed here. Just a local concentration of matter/Energy in a Space where this happens all the Time.

    And where is the uniqueness in that?

    The model of Big Bag was concieved by mathematicaly projecting movements backwards in time assuming that Everything fitted in a methamagicaly small point. Then they start calculating what would happen to stuff under these extreme conditons. All the while it is not the world they are describing but only the assumed extremity and its physics. And even a grain of sand becomes weird when forced into a point.

    Kind regards ThorDenBrage.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2003
  21. apolo Registered Senior Member

    I find much that I can agree with in Thor's post above ( hope he dos'nt mind me shortening his handle) e.i. if we are to asume that the universe was smaller in the past than it is now, why would it have to contract to a single point? Why not to the size of a basked ball or a helium baloon or Mars before it blew up again??
    Fred Hoyle, as everyone knows was a champion of the steady state theory
    (SSt) since the 1940th, later he modified his theory slightly to the modified SSt Which in brief says (I'l spare you all the math) that the universe acts like a pair of lungs; inflating and contracting with a period of several billion years. But the smallest size is only 75%to80%
    of the largest size, and we are currently in the expansion phase.
    If anyone is interested in checking Hoyles arguments,observations and math read "A Different Approach to Cosmology" published Dec. 2000

    May the force be with you
    Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from
    mediocre minds.
    Albert Einstein
  22. Beercules Registered Senior Member

    There is not enough matter to allow for an oscillating universe for one. As to the question of how small the initial universe was, doesn't it make sense for the size to be at a minimum at the minimum time? There is a link that covers this a little:
  23. melchizedek Registered Member

    Remember: There will always still be one fact to prove Big Bang wrong...

    they say the universe is self-generating, yet who is the 'self' who generated it?

    we could go back forever on the origin of even the smallest things that 'were' at the beginning, and I could always win, because they couldnt just 'be'.

    "Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    The universe began to exist.
    Therefore, the universe has a cause" -WLC

    - M

Share This Page