Deception of Big Bang Theory

IAC,

You are wrong but not alone in your wrongness. It's easy to have such misconceptions.

Our visible universe was indeed contained in a dense point, but the cosmos consists of an infinity of these points. I have posts here that describe the current understanding of this, but I'll reproduce the gist of it here for you.

Imagine the cosmos as an infinite three dimensional grid of boxes (it's easier than visualizing infinite and overlapping hubble volumes). At T=0 (the Big Bang) each "box" represents the initial volume of a "universe". The BB was the point at which the entire infinity (cosmos) of such boxes began expanding (of course placing arbitrary "boxes" to represent expanding spacetime is for visualization only).

The universe we can see is our perspective from one of an infinity of these volumes. Billions of lightyears from here, there could be beings observing their Hubble Volume and we are just beyond the edge of this region (The hubble volume is the volume of spacetime we can observe due to the limiting redshift of light as the universe at a given Hubble Horizon expands away from us at or beyond the speed of light).

Therefore, the cosmos is infinite and unbounded and it only appears that there is a "center" to the universe because every observer is at the center of their own unique hubble volume.

Hope you can understand this and not continue with your erroneous statements about what the BB represents and what it does not.

Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Someone has just shown me this calculator, which allows you to play about with the parameters of the Universe. Addictive stuff!
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

-----
If you leave all the other values at the default setting but set the redshift (z) to 1248, you get a snapshot of what the Universe looks like at the decoupling era (when the universe was 300,000 years old and first became transparent) from the point of view of an observer in the current era. For the sake of this example I'll assume that the default settings reflect the real universe; others might have a different idea.

The light emitted at the Decoupling era has travelled for 13.665 gigayears before reaching our instruments (this number is known as the Light Travel Time Distance, and is the most familiar measure of the size of the universe) ;
but because the universe is expanding, the point of emission is now 45.737 gigalightyears away. This distance is called the Co-Moving Radial Distance.
The point of emission is fleeing away in the opposite direction very fast; I find that this little image helps me to visualise that effect.
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/expansion.gif

When the light was emitted, the point of emission was much closer to us than it is now, no more than 36.613 million light years away; this is the Angular size distance.

Finally the luminosity distance is a measure of how much the light has become dimmed by the expansion of the universe; this is the largest measure of distance of all, and comes out to a whopping 57116.356 gigalightyears. No wonder the Cosmic Microwave background is so dim...

A nice, simple explanation of these figures can be found here
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/redshift.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great fun, isn't it ?

Physics/cosmology is a dreamer's delight, just packed full of flights of fantasy.

Cosmologists are not doing anyone a favour by sprouting the BS that they wade in nowadays, AND treat it as factual reality.

The concepts are not even up to the hypothesis level, and yet there is never any indication to the public that all the words are most probably ( most definitely) just blowing out in the rear wind.

Meanwhile their fantasies take centre stage and the real discussion re "the truth" has to wait in the wings.

If anyone tries to present a contradictory argument then all hell breaks lose... such is the state of Internet science forums.... totally ANTI-scientific, IMO.

This is mainly why I can not be bothered discussing anything on the net nowadays. The english word to describe this phenomenon is EGO.

Talk of the BB ?

well y'all know, time is an artifact... there is no beginning, no end, there is just now.

If you all woke up, this discussion would not even be happening, but by all means, sleep on and enjoy your dreams.



>> The light emitted at the Decoupling era has travelled for 13.665 gigayears before reaching our instruments >>

I see this often, makes me wonder how we here on Earth ever get to see the light that left such a long while ago, and yet we are here to see it!

That implies that the Earth travelled many times faster that the speed of light so we could overtake such images.

get real guys, or really my suspicions may be proved correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm; the light comes to us, we don't overtake it. All we have to do is wait and it arrives.
Do you have to overtake the light which you see? That must make looking at things tricky...

 

>> All we have to do is wait and it arrives.

LOL, how did we get here before the light got here.........

 

"A scientist's goal is to synthesize reality by reconciling the myriad of perspectives, while respecting that we all stand on the shoulders of giants."

...that explains it then...

 

Ice

An appropriate title for the thread, however your deception was exposed on the first page.

 

According to BB theory, spacetime expanded much faster than the speed of light (inflation). This would leave us just now seeing events from the farthest visible objects.

P.S.

You people who love to bash the BB should really get a basic grasp of what it says first, right or wrong, before acting like complete douchbags.

 

Anyone who wants to critiscise something should have at least a basic (and correct) understanding of it beforehand.

 

Can someone please offer a fresh analogy if this one is disputed...

 

Yours is a good one and the most common analogy. The problem with it is that it maps the expanding volume of spacetime to the two dimensional surface of an expanding sheet. This still leaves most people with the idea that the "baloon" still has some kind of center and limits the size of the universe to that of the baloon's surface.

The 3D grid analogy (original with me as far as I know) clears this up and clearly explains why there is no "center" or "edge" and how the universe can be infinite yet bounded by the rate of expansion of spacetime beyond c.

 

Thanks for reaffirming that - it offers a more accurate account than my analogy.

 

>> spacetime expanded much faster than the speed of light (inflation)>>

you guys smoke too much weed.

Boy your discerning facultatives are corrupted if you believe this crap.

 

I won't argue that some physicists smoke too much weed (especially as grad students), but inflation, however unlikely it may sound, still explains the universe far better than any competitors.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~jmdavis1/astro.html

We don't get to tell Nature how to behave, Nature tells us.

 

Exactly. It's an explanation that fits the current observations. It may be wildly wrong, but until observations arise that force us to rethink this, it's where we're at.

URI dosen't understand science.

 

Science evolves and new theories are accepted or rejected based on the evidence they provide or challenge - science is not perfect nor should it claim to be...but it is by far preferable compared to the alternatives.

 

I tend to prefer eviscerating a lamb and querying the intestinal geometries for enlightenment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As I've posted in other threads on this topic, the easy way to visualize the expansion of the Universe is to recognize that everywhere in the Universe is the center of the Universe, in its own reference frame.

Accordingly, since we are at the center of the Universe, we see (via telescopes) nearby galaxies with low red-shifts, which we interpret as low recessional velocities, each receding away from us in every direction. Dimmer galaxies, much farther away, and with greater red shifts, are interpreted as receding at much greater recessional velocity. We see these galaxies receding from us, as we sit in the center of the Universe in our reference frame, in every direction looking outward.

The most distant 'object' we see is actually not an object at all, but a spherical shell of hot hydrogen gas that completely surrounds us and that is receding from us at the tremendous recessional velocity of roughly 0.999999c, causing the redshift to be roughly 1,000, corresponding to the equivalent of the electromagnetic emission of a stationary black-body at a cool 2.7 degrees Kelvin (which is the same as a hot body of gas of 2,700 degrees Kelvin receding at 0.999999c). It is sometimes referred to as the 'blackbody background radiation', though in fact it is the light emitted from matter which is SEPARATE and DISTINCT from the matter of all the visible galaxies, receding from us at near light speed. It is more usually referred to as the cosmic microwave background.

If we imagine time reversed, then at the recessional velocities of all the galaxies, they would have all been on top of us here at the center of the Universe some 13.7 billion years ago. That is also true for the spherical shell of hot hydrogen gas we see, as well, which travelling at nearly the speed of light away from us, is now quite far away, and only dimly seen in the microwave frequencies, rather than visible light frequencies as for the much nearer galaxies. It too would have been on top of us 13.7 billion years ago.

Beyond that spherical shell would be more matter, at even higher temperature, and even greater recessional velocity, though we can't see it as yet, since it is beyond that spherical shell, where light travels slower (because light travels at the speed of light in a vacuum, but slower through a medium such as Hydrogen plasma). However, as time passes, we will see an ever larger Universe of matter.

Thus, the Universe is infinite in time, space and matter, though we can only see a finite portion of it, only as far away as the matter that has emitted the microwave background.

If life exists elsewhere in the Universe, that elsewhere might indeed be beyond the matter that emitted the microwave background that we see. However, we cannot see it as it now is (and indeed, we could not see it until enough time passed that it had cooled, decoupled, and emitted light that we would see as a microwave background sometime in the distant future). Indeed, we cannot see galaxies that are 10 billion light years away as they now are (or are in their own reference frame). Instead, we see those galaxies as they were billions of years ago, due to the finite speed of light.

Some people have likened the Universe to be the interior of an infinite singularity.

I personally began teaching the above theory in 1975, when I pondered on the subject and came to the realization that even the spherical-shell microwave background emitter, which is thus matter separate and distinct from the matter of the other galaxies, was once directly on top of us, as were the galaxies, at the start of the "Big Bang". It got blown away from us, just as did the matter that coalesced and formed the galaxies, but at a very high recessional velocity. It too would have continued to cool and coalesce into galaxies, if one were in its own reference frame, and not Earth's reference frame.

The Big Bang was indeed an infinite explosion of matter/energy, creating space-time and the opportunity for life to arise, and us as humans to ponder our place in the Universe and our role in society.

Hope this helps.

 

Fascinating...profound...inspiring. Thank you.

 

Think of a 2D object living on the surface of the Earth. It knows forward-and-back and side-to-side. What it is unaware of, is the curvature of the Earth through the 3rd dimension. So, when it sets out on the smooth Earth, in any direction, it finds itself confused to ALWAYS end back up right where it started. No matter which direction it travels in. It seems as if the Earth is both finite, but without boundaries. How is this possible? Because the boundary does not really exist to the 2D creature, it is a boundary of an unseen dimension.

The fourth dimension is not time, Time is unique as dimensions go, with only one direction. Physicists confuse the issue by calling Time the fourth dimension. There is likely no fourth cardinal dimension, but something else entirely. A dimension that allows the three cardinal ones to wrap around themselves. Brain hurt? So would the 2D creature as you posit a 3rd, trust me.

It does show how the universe can be finite and unbounded, though. Travel in a straight line in any direction in our universe, and you will end up right back where you started. Which leads to a conclusion even stranger than the one Hubble came to when he realized we were all red-shifting away from each other... where are we racing? All to the same point! Will the universe ever slow down, pause, and reverse direction in order to reach singularity? Not at all... it will keep going "straight" in those three dimensions while it wraps around the fourth one. Remember where our little guy kept ending up? Right back where he started.

Right now physicists are puzzled over why the universe seems to be accelerating, instead of slowing down. They make up explanations, like Anti-Gravity and Dark Energy. It could be regular, old gravity. It could be that our universe is over half-way to where it is going, and it is on the downhill portion of the ride. Why don't we see it coming? It is over the "horizon", perhaps. Or just as the flashlight of the 2D animal would always travel in a tangent to the sphere, so does our 3D light travel tangentially to the 4D path we are on. The big crunch could come with very little forewarning, perhaps with some relativistic oddities or time dilation, and then - Crunch.

If so, remember that you heard it here first on SciForums, and from humble old swivel.