The Story of the Universe: : Tutorial :

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Oct 10, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    HISTORY OF THE MODEL:
    The story of the Universe started around 13.83 billion years ago, although as accuracy improves that figure seems to be revised every so often.
    It started in what has become known derisively as the Big Bang, a name coined by an opponent named Fred Hoyle in conjunction with Bondi and Gold who were proposing a Steady State model of the Universe.
    The other competing theory in the early fifties was the Oscillating theory.
    Perhaps Fred Hoyle's opposition stems from the fact that the BB insinuates that the Universe had a beginning in time, and in actuality was first proposed by Father George LeMaitre, a Belgian priest.
    The early part of the 20th century it was thought the Universe was static. Even Albert Einstein could not accept what his own equations were telling him with regards to a dynamic Universe, hence his additional Cosmological Constant to maintain the static belief of the day.
    This was until the great Edwin Hubble in 1929 discovered that the Universe was expanding.
    He showed firstly that the nebulae that were often observed and taken to be part of the Milky Way, were actually far beyond our galaxy, and secondly, he then showed that by comparing EMR redshifts, and distances, that these galaxies beyond the MW were apparently moving away from us.
    The BB is predicted by four pillars of Astronomy.
    [1] The observed Expansion:
    [2] The Discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation at a precise 2.7 K.
    [3] The abundance of lighter elements such as Hydrogen and Helium.
    [4]Galactic formation and large scale structure.


    The Detail Theory of the Model:
    We must first begin by saying that the closer to the moment of the BB, the less certain we are of what actually occurred. In fact during the first Planck instant of t+10-43 seconds after the event, we know nothing: General relativity and our laws of physics fail us at this quantum level. We call this a Singularity of space and time, as distinct from a BH Singularity, which is imbedded in spacetime.

    The BB was not what one would imagine as a traditional explosion.
    It was simply an evolution of space and time in the first instant, and a "Superforce" a unification of the four known forces we know today.
    As spacetime expanded the Superforce started to decouple. [keep in mind we are still only around t+10-33 seconds after the BB] Gravity was first.
    This created what is called phase transitions and false vacuums with excesses in energy going into creating our first fundamental particles probably electrons and quarks.

    As the Universe continued to grow from this very hot dense state, the other forces decoupled, and our fundamental particles started to do the opposite and couple together.
    At around the first 3 minute mark after the BB, our first atomic nuclei were formed....protons and neutrons abounded with loose electrons.
    During this still very hot and dense period, the Universe was Opaque, and it wasn't until around 380,000 years later, when temperatures had dropped sufficiently to allow electrons to couple with atomic nuclei, that our first elements were formed.

    From that point on it was a breeze as to how our Universe evolved and how our first generation of stars were formed from accreting masses of giant clouds of Hydrogen and some Helium.
    These stars and eventual galaxies grew from the tiny variations in temperatures in the CMBR that acted as seeds for such condensation.
    The stars were giant behemoths and lived short life's measured in 10's of millions of years before going S/Nova creating our first stellar size BH's that accreted to form SMBH's, while at the same time spread their enriched guts of heavier elements throughout the Universe, which in turn accreted to form second and third Gen stars and planets of the heavier elements that was available for building.

    :Modification of the Big Bang:

    I see that as the greatest Story ever told but science being what it is and the continuing search for answers, realised that this epic tale still had some faults which could not be explained by the accepted BB model.
    These were what cosmology calls the horizon problem, Flatness Isotropic and homogeneous observations.
    This was explained by the addition of Inflation theory formulated by Alan Guth which explained these anomalies by invoking a very rapid expansion rate at the first instant of the evolution of spacetime.
    This also explains the even distribution of the CMBR.

    Another addition was the discovery of the expansion accelerating, first discovered from data received from WMAP [ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]
    This same notable state of the art probe, also gave us data indicating our Universe is flat, within very small tolerance range, gave us more precise measurement as to its age, and detailing the CMBR in even greater detail than its predecessor COBE.

    At this time, the BB/Inflationary model stands as unchallenged in this remarkable story and its details.



     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
    danshawen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I am in dilemma whether to let you continue with your enthusiasm or correct you. But for a larger good I must intervene.

    First and foremost, you would like to use the word 'confirmed' in place of 'predicted'.....

    Most of the part is a copy paste from varied source, but the above quoted part appears to have been taken either from a pop stuff or its your version...

    How do you conclude that formation of large scale structure predicts ( or confirms) BB ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    You have no say in whether to let me continue or other wise , and your pretentious indignation is fooling no one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Umm, no, it stays as is and admirably suffices.
    If it was a copy n paste I would have said so...unlike you, I do have principals I uphold to. Just a summary of present 2oth/21st century cosmology/Astronomy as accepted due to overwhelming evidence supporting it and just as obviously all can be confirmed..
    The large scale structure of galaxies is supported in the very slight variations in the temperatures of the CMBR which acted as seeds for galactic and stellar formation.

    see......
    http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html
    These cosmic microwave temperature fluctuations are believed to trace fluctuations in the density of matter in the early universe, as they were imprinted shortly after the Big Bang. This being the case, they reveal a great deal about the early universe and the origin of galaxies and large scale structurein the universe.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,522
    "Confirm" is the wrong word.
    The pillars may well lend credence and support to the BB, but they don't confirm it.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    If you were reading properly, and digesting the knowledge I have detailed for lay people such as yourself, with this basic tutorial, you would have noticed in the "Detail Theory of the Model" section, I did cover that point as one of the pillars as follows..........
     
  9. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Before you make any further comment on the large scale structure, please do read about the time frame required for formation of such large scale structures (clusters and walls). You will come out of 'coma'. [intended]
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Before you make anymore comment about anything, I would really attempt to get a better grip of the English language.
    http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html
    These cosmic microwave temperature fluctuations are believed to trace fluctuations in the density of matter in the early universe, as they were imprinted shortly after the Big Bang. This being the case, they reveal a great deal about the early universe and the origin of galaxies and large scale structure in the universe.

    From that "origin point" gravity then was largely responsible responsible.
    The tutorial stands as factually correct as does the BH tutorial.
    I regret you have learnt nothing from either.
     
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    ...you still have not answered the question in my Post #2, just by making a bland statement that your tutorial stands factually correct, does not make it correct.

    Q in Post # 2
    How do you conclude that formation of large scale structure predicts ( or confirms) BB ?
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    My tutorial is correct and can be verified.
    If you can find anything reputable to invalidate any aspect of it be my guest.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I won't hold my breath though as this is just another example of you spouting bullshit.

    Already answered....
     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    Pad considers himself the absolute on truth about our very young investigation into this Universe inwhich we exist.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Perhaps if you read the tutorial properly, and realise that the BB stands on solid ground due to the four pillars of cosmology mentioned.
    And of course in science we have no absolute truth, but by the same token the accepted scientific method and peer review, weeds out the nonsensical pseudo
    aspect like your own Plasma/Electric Universe theory, which never got past the pseudoscience stage, and has actually now faded into oblivion.
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You mean use of "predicted" is ok..
     
  16. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    Neither, predicted and/or confirmed is ok.
     
  17. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    BB is just old thinking. BB is out dated and has been for many years.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    No that is totally wrong.
    Scientific theories are based on what the observations predict, as much as that debunks your own Plasma/Electric universe nonsense.
    eg: The observed expansion predicts a hotter, denser, smaller universe in the past.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Reference?



    http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/senior/cosmicengine/bigbang.html

    The "Big Bang" is the term given to what is currently the most widely accepted scientific model for the origin and evolution of the Universe. This model has supplanted other models such as the Steady State theory proposed by Hoyle, Bondi and Gold in the 1940s. Indeed it was Fred Hoyle who coined the term "big bang" as a derisory one in an interview in the 1960s.

    In the Big Bang theory the Universe comes into existence, creating time and space. Initially the Universe would have been extremely hot and dense. It expanded and cooled. Some of the energy involved was turned into matter. Current observations suggest an age for the Universe of about 13.7 billion years.

    The current success of the big bang model relies on several key areas of observational evidence and predictions. These are discussed briefly below.
     
  20. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    No, this is not the answer. You can answer only if you understand the question.

    First and foremost, the discovery of Large scale structure did not predict BB...its upto you to understand this or not. First you learn then think of tutoring.

    Discovery and subsequent data analysis of very large scale structures created two issues around Big Bang...one is the uniformity aspect and the second one is regarding the age of the universe, this required new tuning of BB and put a question mark whether BB is complete or needs some other add ons.

    What you are copying again and again above does not touch upon the time required for the formation of such observed large Scale Structures, the point is that such formations could not have been completed in around 13.8 billion years. Things are being worked out on these large Scale structures, and what you are saying is one of the hypothesis of the origin (or starting seeds) of the formation of such structures. Nothing more nothing less.

    You saw the folly in your argument, as per you, an observation which puts a question mark on BB completeness, predicted BB?

    Please read less of popscience and just stop reading 'Universe Today', this UT has stuffed a lot of crap in your head.
     
  21. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    How are " scientific theories are based on what the observations predict " ?
     
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Predicts:
    say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.
     
  23. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    Yes, and?
     

Share This Page