The big bang theory has problems with observed reality

[toocoolblue]

The Big Bang Theory has problems with observed reality.

These problems have been overcome by inferring the existence of matter, energy, particles, fields, alternate dimensions and parallel universes all of which remain outside the range of our detection. Dark Matter was added to the Big Bang in the 70's. Inflation was added in the 80's. Dark Energy was added in the 90's. etc.

None of these things were predicted by the Big Bang, but were added to the theory to save it from observed reality. Today these inferred substances are said to make up 95-96% of the universe. While the remaining 4%, known as called baryonic matter, cannot be explained by any theory.

CERN Research Finds "The Universe Should Not Actually Exist"

As science sought out these inferred saviors of the Big Bang, it was discovered that if they truly existed, each required fine tunings that only a "Fine Tuner/God" could explain. For example, Dark Energy has to be set to 1 part in 10 to the power 120. That's one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. This is just one of many "fine tuning" issues.

But science solved all these problems by inferring the "Multiverse".

This concept is defined as an infinitely large collection of parallel universes that each have different laws of physics. Thus theorizing, we were lucky because an infinite number of parallel universes were not lucky. To quote Alan Guth, the father of the Inflation Theory, "Anything that can happen - does happen...in one of the alternatives, which means that superimposed on top of the universe that we know of, is an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley it still alive."

Thus, if you save the Big Bang by invoking the physics of 'Anything that can happen, does happen' it follows that the Flat Earth must exist in the parallel universe. And if one exists, an infinite number must also exist.

Consequently, if you have embraced the Multiverse as an scientific explanation for anything -
You must also admit, you believe in the Flat Earth, where Elvis is President and he rides around on a flying pig instead of Air Force One.

 

[exchemist]

The Big Bang Theory has problems with observed reality.

These problems have been overcome by inferring the existence of matter, energy, particles, fields, alternate dimensions and parallel universes all of which remain outside the range of our detection. Dark Matter was added to the Big Bang in the 70's. Inflation was added in the 80's. Dark Energy was added in the 90's. etc.

None of these things were predicted by the Big Bang, but were added to the theory to save it from observed reality. Today these inferred substances are said to make up 95-96% of the universe. While the remaining 4%, known as called baryonic matter, cannot be explained by any theory.

CERN Research Finds "The Universe Should Not Actually Exist"

As science sought out these inferred saviors of the Big Bang, it was discovered that if they truly existed, each required fine tunings that only a "Fine Tuner/God" could explain. For example, Dark Energy has to be set to 1 part in 10 to the power 120. That's one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. This is just one of many "fine tuning" issues.

But science solved all these problems by inferring the "Multiverse".

This concept is defined as an infinitely large collection of parallel universes that each have different laws of physics. Thus theorizing, we were lucky because an infinite number of parallel universes were not lucky. To quote Alan Guth, the father of the Inflation Theory, "Anything that can happen - does happen...in one of the alternatives, which means that superimposed on top of the universe that we know of, is an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley it still alive."

Thus, if you save the Big Bang by invoking the physics of 'Anything that can happen, does happen' it follows that the Flat Earth must exist in the parallel universe. And if one exists, an infinite number must also exist.

Consequently, if you have embraced the Multiverse as an scientific explanation for anything -
You must also admit, you believe in the Flat Earth, where Elvis is President and he rides around on a flying pig instead of Air Force One.

This seems largely to be ballocks.

Dark matter was not added to the big bang hypothesis. It is a placeholder term to describe an issue related to rotation rates of galaxies, something the big bang is not concerned with at all.

But in any case, since the job of science is to develop models to account for observed reality, it is hardly a criticism if the models are adapted to take account of new observations.

 

[toocoolblue]

This seems largely to be ballocks.

Dark matter was not added to the big bang hypothesis. It is a placeholder term to describe an issue related to rotation rates of galaxies, something the big bang is not concerned with at all.

But in any case, since the job of science is to develop models to account for observed reality, it is hardly a criticism if the models are adapted to take account of new observations.

Just a few questions...
In the Lamda, Cold Dark Matter, Big Bang model which is called LCDM cosmology and is now taught in every university in the world.

What role does Cold Dark Matter play? If it is as you say, "something the big bang is not concerned with at all" - So what does it do?

Why is it cold? Does it need a jacket?

 

[DaveC426913]

You're kind of mashing a bunch of ideas together. Do you want to talk about multiverses, or do you want to talk about The Big Bang and dark matter?

Have you considered Googling some of your questions? Such as 'why do we say dark matter is cold?'

Also note that mutiverse talk does not really fall in the realm of physics; it's really metaphysics - or philosophy, depending on who you ask. So the question,again, is: what do you want to talk about? Pick something.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The state of the debate evolves with the addition of more and better information. Not much springs from the forehead of Zeus these days. We've had a huge increase information in the past century and it looks to get better as time goes forward. One takeaway from this is that we have the ability to correct incorrect conclusions. Another is that working with the best information available is better than ignoring the problems that information has.

 

[toocoolblue]

You're kind of mashing a bunch of ideas together. Do you want to talk about multiverses, or do you want to talk about The Big Bang and dark matter?

Have you considered Googling some of your questions? Such as 'why do we say dark matter is cold?'

I don't think so. If you bother to read the initial post, it barely says a word about Dark Matter. I was only responding to a comment.

I would much prefer to talk only about the Multiverse, but in a way they are all the same thing. Once you've started saving your theories with invisible, imaginary, undetectable things that perform miracles that can never be observed in nature or recreated in a laboratory....it's kinda hard to stop.

Once Dark Matter cleared the way, the Inflaton, Dark Energy and the Multiverse quickly followed.

What they all have in common is simple - If you can prove any of these things are real, contact the Nobel committee immediately. They have a million dollar check waiting for you. The Fundamental Physics Prize has another 3 million dollars waiting for you.

So.. 4 million bucks if you can find 96% of this universe or any part of an infinite number of universes filled with Flat Earths and Flying Pigs.

The tragedy is what has happened to real science.

From 1900 to 1977, humans went from walking and riding horses to splitting atoms, standing on the moon and flying at twice the speed of sound.
In medicine - Insulin (22), penicillin (28), blood storage (40), kidney dialysis (44), polio vaccine (53), DNA structure (53), CT scan (67), MRI (73).
In other things - Quantum mechanics (00), air conditioning (02), airplane (03), vacuum tube (04), E=mc2 (05), atomic nucleus (09), electron microscope (31), split atom (32), radar (35), jet engine (37), helicopter (39), nuclear reactor (41), electronic computer (42), atomic bomb (45), transistor (47), fiber optic cable (52), laser (60), moon landing (69), supersonic travel/concorde (69), microprocessor (71), Cellphone (73), TCP/IP (74), graphical interface/windows (75).

What have we done since then? We can't fly faster than sound anymore, nobody goes to the moon, life expectancy is falling, the earth is heating up faster than ever, etc.

It's as if science hit a hard stop in 1977. For almost 50 years, all we have accomplished is to make existing technology a little better.

The most brilliant minds of an entire generation have been wasted trying to save ideas that should have been discarded as rubbish long ago.
What's the limit on imaginary, invisible, undetectable things that have only been invented to save face for the status quo?

 

[exchemist]

Just a few questions...
In the Lamda, Cold Dark Matter, Big Bang model which is called LCDM cosmology and is now taught in every university in the world.

What role does Cold Dark Matter play? If it is as you say, "something the big bang is not concerned with at all" - So what does it do?

Why is it cold? Does it need a jacket?

Lambda CDM is one mathematical model for cosmological expansion that combines the Big Bang hypothesis with the dark matter hypothesis, and which seems to be quite successful.

Cold refers to one of the assumptions about energy distribution that goes into the model. Since dark matter, if it exists, would not take part in electromagnetic interactions, it is not clear how it could gain or lose energy by radiation or collisions, as normal matter does. So some assumptions must be made about what proportion of the matter/energy of the universe are bound up in it, for the sake of the model. Cold implies it would not include much thermal kinetic energy.

When you say Lambda CDM is widely taught you seem (or pretend to be) unaware of what it is taught as being. Cosmology students will be well aware that it is a somewhat conjectural model with a lot of assumptions built in, because that is the status of cosmology today. But this model does seem quite successful in accounting for observations, so that is why it is taught.

This is how science works: by combining individual hypotheses derived from observation into models and seeing if they can work together without conflicting, while accounting for observation.

A flat earth, needless to say, fails on all fronts.

P.S. my response is made just in case you are posting in good faith. However my troll detector has been set off, both by the deliberately provocative reference to a flat earth and by the twatlike comment about dark matter needing a jacket. If you behave like a jerk you can expect either a hostile reception, or no reception at all.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You should be able to see the Sun from all points on the ... globe ... if the Earth was flat.

I remember Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" show. One southern Indiana hillbilly puts two stakes in the ground about .5 meters apart and runs a string between them, pulled tight.

"See? No curve!" He was stunningly clueless, the target audience for the Flat Earth Society.

BTW, I'm a member of the Flat Earth Society. The contact info was included in the People's Almanac. I was on WestPac at the time, and bored.

 

[Pinball1970]

While the remaining 4%, known as called baryonic matter, cannot be explained by any theory

That is precisely what BB theory explains.

 

[DaveC426913]

What have we done since then? We can't fly faster than sound anymore, nobody goes to the moon, life expectancy is falling, the earth is heating up faster than ever, etc.

It's as if science hit a hard stop in 1977.

Ah. What did you want to talk about today? Technological progress? You are confusing science with technology.

I see little point in engaging any particular argument if you don't have the attention span to get you from one post to the next.

This thread belongs in Free Thoughts.


"If you behave like a jerk you can expect either a hostile reception, or no reception at all."

You can still turn this thread around if you get serious. Up to you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Once you've started saving your theories with invisible, imaginary, undetectable things that perform miracles that can never be observed in nature or recreated in a laboratory....it's kinda hard to stop.

Once Dark Matter cleared the way, the Inflaton, Dark Energy and the Multiverse quickly followed.

What they all have in common is simple - If you can prove any of these things are real, contact the Nobel committee immediately. They have a million dollar check waiting for you. The Fundamental Physics Prize has another 3 million dollars waiting for you.

I think you are mssing the point.


Dark matter and dark energy are placeholders for things we observe empirically. Eg. We see gravitational effects that are not explained by our current models. It is happening, even if we don't know why. DM is simply what we're calling it while we go looking.

If you don't like the DM theory, that's fine. But you can't dismiss the observations outright without offering an alternative explanation. You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and say lalala.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It wasn't science that killed the SSTs, it was money.

 

[DaveC426913]

It wasn't science that killed the SSTs,

Indeed. The science that made suspersonic flight possible is still quite valid. The OP is confused.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I love the illustrations of how the Sun and Moon hover above the flat earth. How THAT works is ... well, it's bullshit. But better is that the light from the Sun is shown as a cone that lights about 24% of Earth at any one time. While this miracle is taking place they have the Moon always directly across the disk and keeping that distance as the sun ♫goes round and round♫.

 

[billvon]

From 1900 to 1977, humans went from walking and riding horses to splitting atoms, standing on the moon and flying at twice the speed of sound.
In medicine - Insulin (22), penicillin (28), blood storage (40), kidney dialysis (44), polio vaccine (53), DNA structure (53), CT scan (67), MRI (73).
In other things - Quantum mechanics (00), air conditioning (02), airplane (03), vacuum tube (04), E=mc2 (05), atomic nucleus (09), electron microscope (31), split atom (32), radar (35), jet engine (37), helicopter (39), nuclear reactor (41), electronic computer (42), atomic bomb (45), transistor (47), fiber optic cable (52), laser (60), moon landing (69), supersonic travel/concorde (69), microprocessor (71), Cellphone (73), TCP/IP (74), graphical interface/windows (75).

What have we done since then?

Quantum computers. Ion engines. Reusable space launchers. The Space Shuttle and its derivatives (like the Buran and the X-37.) Reliable/cheap satellite communications. FPGA's. Hybrid power inverters. 24% efficient solar power systems. Widespread use of EVs. Inverter motor drives. A cure for cancer - CAR-T cell therapy. Vaccines for cancer. Terabyte solid state storage ICs. Gene editing in live cells (CRISPR/CAS-9.) Grid scale storage. Grid scale wind and solar. The ISS. Wireless power transmission. Autonomous vehicles. Neuroceuticals. Quadrotor vehicles. SiC and GAN power swiches. Implantable insulin monitors and pumps.

If you haven't heard of any of these - you simply haven't been paying attention.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nikes sneaks. Maidenform Bras. Microwave milk shakes.

 

[Pinball1970]

It's as if science hit a hard stop in 1977. For almost 50 years, all we have accomplished is to make existing technology a little better.

1980: Klaus von Klitzing discovered the quantum Hall effect
1982: Donald C. Backer et al. discover the first millisecond pulsar
1983: Kary Mullis invents the polymerase chain reaction, a key discovery in molecular biology
1986: Karl Müller and Johannes Bednorz: Discovery of High-temperature superconductivity
1988: Bart van Wees [nl] and colleagues at TU Deflt and Philips Research discovered the quantized conductance in a two-dimensional electron gas.
1992: Aleksander Wolszczan and Dale Frail observe the first pulsar planets (this was the first confirmed discovery of planets outside the Solar System)
1994: Andrew Wiles proves Fermat's Last Theorem
1995: Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz definitively observe the first extrasolar planet around a main sequence star
1995: Eric Cornell, Carl Wieman and Wolfgang Ketterle attained the first Bose-Einstein Condensate with atomic gases, so called fifth state of matter at an extremely low temperature.
1996: Roslin Institute: Dolly the sheep was cloned.[128]
1997: CDF and DØ experiments at Fermilab: Top quark.
1998: Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Search Team: discovery of the accelerated expansion of the Universe and dark energy
2000: The Tau neutrino is discovered by the DONUT collaboration

• 2001: The first draft of the Human Genome Project is published.
• 2003: Grigori Perelman presents proof of the Poincaré Conjecture.
• 2004: Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov isolated graphene, a monolayer of carbon atoms, and studied its quantum electrical properties.
• 2005: Grid cells in the brain are discovered by Edvard Moser and May-Britt Moser.
• 2010: The first self-replicating, synthetic bacterial cells are constructed.[129]
• 2010: The Neanderthal Genome Project presented preliminary genetic evidence that interbreeding did likely take place and that a small but significant portion of Neanderthal admixture is present in modern non-African populations.[citation needed]
• 2012: Higgs boson is discovered at CERN (confirmed to 99.999% certainty)
• 2012: Photonic molecules are discovered at MIT
• 2014: Exotic hadrons are discovered at the LHCb
• 2014: Photonic metamaterials are discovered to make passive daytime radiative cooling possible by Raman et al.[130][131]
• 2016: The LIGO team detects gravitational waves from a black hole merger
• 2017: Gravitational wave signal GW170817 is observed by the LIGO/Virgo collaboration. This is the first instance of a gravitational wave event observed to have a simultaneous electromagnetic signal when space telescopes like Hubble observed lights coming from the event, thereby marking a significant breakthrough for multi-messenger astronomy.[132][133][134]
• 2019: The first image of a black hole is captured, using eight different telescopes taking simultaneous pictures, timed with extremely precise atomic clocks.
• 2020: NASA and SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy) discover about 12 US fl oz (350 ml) of surface water in one of the Moon's largest visible craters.[135]

 

[James R]

Hello toocoolblue. Welcome to sciforums.

The Big Bang Theory has problems with observed reality.

The big bang theory is a theory that attempts to explain how observed reality came to be what we observe it to be. In a sense, various features of our current big bang theory have been forced on us, following detailed observations of reality.

When a scientific theory has problems with reality, it is time to modify it or consign it to the trash heap. The BB theory has had modifications since the idea was first put forward. Today's big bang theory is different from the big bang theory scientists were comfortable with in the 1920s, for instance, to pick an arbitrary date. The reason it's different is due to problems later discovered by observing reality.

There's nothing terribly special about the BB theory, in terms of how and why it has changed over time. This is business as usual for science. It's more of a cycle or a circle than a straight line from A to B.

These problems have been overcome by inferring the existence of matter, energy, particles, fields, alternate dimensions and parallel universes all of which remain outside the range of our detection. Dark Matter was added to the Big Bang in the 70's. Inflation was added in the 80's. Dark Energy was added in the 90's. etc.

You shouldn't make blanket claims about what is outside the range of our detection. We can and do already detect lots of particles, for instance - one of the items on your list of the undetectable. There are very expensive efforts taking place around the world right now that are trying to detect dark matter directly. Nobody would pay for such things if we had good reasons to assume that dark energy is undetectable.

None of these things were predicted by the Big Bang, but were added to the theory to save it from observed reality.

In other words, the BB theory was adjusted in the light of new observations and other evidence. This is business as usual in science.

Today these inferred substances are said to make up 95-96% of the universe. While the remaining 4%, known as called baryonic matter, cannot be explained by any theory.

Have you heard of the Standard Model of Particle Physics? Hint: it does quite a good job of explaining baryonic matter. Look it up.

As science sought out these inferred saviors of the Big Bang, it was discovered that if they truly existed, each required fine tunings that only a "Fine Tuner/God" could explain. For example, Dark Energy has to be set to 1 part in 10 to the power 120. That's one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. This is just one of many "fine tuning" issues.

Where did you get that 1 in 10 to the power of 120 figure from? What does the figure refer to, specifically, in the context of the dark energy that you mentioned?

But science solved all these problems by inferring the "Multiverse".

This concept is defined as an infinitely large collection of parallel universes that each have different laws of physics. Thus theorizing, we were lucky because an infinite number of parallel universes were not lucky. To quote Alan Guth, the father of the Inflation Theory, "Anything that can happen - does happen...in one of the alternatives, which means that superimposed on top of the universe that we know of, is an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley it still alive."

Nobody has detected a multiverse yet. So, I wouldn't say all the problems have been solved by it. It's an idea, but if you ask me, I'll wait for some evidence for it before I accept it. How about you?

Thus, if you save the Big Bang by invoking the physics of 'Anything that can happen, does happen' it follows that the Flat Earth must exist in the parallel universe. And if one exists, an infinite number must also exist.

I don't know whether the multiverse theory literally posits that "anything that can happen does happen". Let's suppose that it does say that, for the sake of argument. Then a universe with a flat earth exists somewhere in the multiverse. This is the point where I shrug and say "so what?" There seem to be no implications for our universe from that, as far as I'm aware. Are there any that you're aware of?

Consequently, if you have embraced the Multiverse as an scientific explanation for anything -
You must also admit, you believe in the Flat Earth, where Elvis is President and he rides around on a flying pig instead of Air Force One.

Again, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that somewhere in the multiverse a flat Earth exists in which Elvis is President and rides on a flying pig. So what? Would that affect our universe? What's the problem, exactly?

Is this just an argument from incredulity? You're saying a multiverse is impossible just because you can't imagine how a universe with a flat Earth and Elvis as President could exist? Or do you have some proof that such a thing is impossible?

 

[James R]

Just a few questions...
In the Lamda, Cold Dark Matter, Big Bang model which is called LCDM cosmology and is now taught in every university in the world.

It's taught as one hypothesis among many. Still a work in progress.

What role does Cold Dark Matter play?

Well, for instance, it helps hold the galaxies together in the right way. It was originally observations that led to the hypothesis. Luminous matter and planets and comets and stuff just don't have enough mass to account for how galaxies are observed to rotate.

Do you have a better solution to that problem? If so, you ought to publish it a scientific journal.

Why is it cold? Does it need a jacket?

The (obvious) alternative to "cold" dark matter is "hot" dark matter. Initially, both ideas were floated by scientists. However, a bunch of observations - call them "problems with reality" if you like - inclined most experts to the view that hot dark matter models can't explain what we observe. That's why the current research focus is on cold dark matter models.

As to what "cold" and "hot" means in this context, it's not too hard to google that. And read exchemist's reply above.