Big Bang Theory Bullets

I've tried to improve the arguments behind the Big Bang Theory.

Each of these can be easily searched for on the web for incredible details, if desired.

All scientific theories, including hypotheses, must be objective based. Predictions from any new model must come forward and tested to either faslify the model or improve its stature.

Any new cosmological model must be able to explain, preferably falsify, all the multiple lines of evidence that produce the incredible confluence culminating in the BBT.

Of course, this huge theory, as with any scientific theory, will fall into constant scrutiny, so some areas will need better scientific methods, perhaps, to refine the model.

Please let me know i f something is in error, or if some other arguments should be added to this bullet list.

[/url]
[url=https://postimg.cc/gxDQ1bSJ][/url]
[url=https://postimg.cc/ykCGd82x][/url]
[url=https://postimg.cc/KK1ff6CC]
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Helio, is not the simple answer that the BBT is fine, except for the last (or first) tiny mathematical consideration of t = 0? Here we hit the problems such as "infinity" and division by zero, where science has nothing to say.

Alternatively, would any such impossible (real) requirement falsify the whole theory? I think not.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Helio, is not the simple answer that the BBT is fine, except for the last (or first) tiny mathematical consideration of t = 0? Here we hit the problems such as "infinity" and division by zero, where science has nothing to say.
Yes. Recall that the initial idea for BBT came from GR, which argues for either expansion or contraction as visible today. This was first presented by Friedman’s mathematical work. Lemaitre, independently, addressed it using physics. He took Slipher’s redshifts and solved GR to demonstrate the expansion, and he introduced his crude estimate of the expansion rate. [He had Hubble’s earlier galactic distances, also necessary for calculating the expansion rate.]

With that in mind, rewinding the clock from today allows physics to address all the changes as things like density and temperatures increase with earlier time.

This physics for earlier times makes the BBT very open to falsification. But no scientific theory embodies claims that exceeds all foreseeable physics. An initial singularity includes infinities, as you note, so IMO the BBT should not be assumed that it goes there. The physics at the first Planck unit of time self-destructs, so we are lost even before t=0.

If, however, the singularity can be addressed then, no doubt, it can be added to BBT, much like Inflation theory was added, even though there are many versions of this, apparently.

Alternatively, would any such impossible (real) requirement falsify the whole theory? I think not.
Well, if it can’t be falsified, it’s not a theory. :) I assume, however, that given its remarkable success, it will take a lot to toss it out. So I think we agree.

If something does change BBT, I suspect it could become something similar to how Newton‘s laws are seen after Einstein took these to a higher level.
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Helio, I would like your opinion on extrapolation backwards from expansion after the BB. Bearing in mind the steep graphical increase with inflation, followed by subsequent flattening and then (according to choice) increasing expansion . . . . . . how on Earth do they get a straight line extrapolation through 'that lot' back to t = 0??

Cat :)
 
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
Helio asks, why if the Universe were infinite "then isn't the night sky full of light?" It is. So filled with light permeation the background is always, permanently, dark. It's loaded with light. A blackhole, too, isn't black due to the lack of light. Just the opposite.

"An older universe should have older stuff?" Yes, if time were straight-line, straight arrow, instead of constants of wheels of time (pasts (-) - futures (+)) turning as the ancient Greeks foresaw (verse : versus : turn : uni-verse ('one turn', or to be more precise, 'to turn'). A full "turn" ('1') -- a full "verse" ('1') -- presently, apparently, being 13.8 billion years, constant! The radius physic, though, is ('1/2'). The Cosmological Constant is Base '2' primordial base, '0' and/or '1' (infinity's symbol may be 'Ꝏ' but its constant is '1').

An infinite and timelessly ever renewing animation of Multiverse Universe would not "have older stuff" than its dynamic constant of time "turning" / wheels of time "turning" ("Universe (U)" / "universes (u)"). Everything it loses to one horizon end point (continuum constant!), blackhole, it gains from the other horizon end point (continuum constant!), [infinity / origin].

The greater the crunch, the greater the bulge. Infinite crunch, infinite bulge ("Big Crunch (BC (M))," "Big Vacuum (BV (C) (C^2)), "Big Bulge (BB (E))"). The universe accelerates in expanding to "potential infinity", my bailiwick that is already here (ever post-"potential" (ever the "potential" fulfilled)), a. k. a. "Nowhereland" to many who aren't, or aren't yet, thinkers in an infinite Frontier Universe (aren't mindful of an infinitely multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, Multiverse Universe). The many who need to be reminded that a universe loaded down with light (that is filled to the max with light) will always be "dark." And who need to be reminded that "forever" is timelessly "today," this very "instant of time" (timelessly "Now (t=0)"). That to the Universe (U), and thus to the universes (u), and to the Cosmological Constant, things "formed" (past tense (-)) are things "forming" (future tense (+)) . . . a 'Schrodinger's cat' superpose.

The Big Picture of history, of time itself, is that it always repeats: Meaning, regarding the frame of universe (the frame of turning), the past is the future; the future is the past, though rarely if ever in fine detail (an exclusion principle does also apply to time (Chaos Theory, as I see it does and will, overlay and inlay duplicate planes (including duplicate branch universes) into one and the same, though infinities of duplicates, too, will always continue to exist to continue to be overlayed and inlayed despite their always ending in a naked singularity (how's that for a definition of 'quantum entanglement' and '0-point dimensionality'?))).

Again in answer to "Why isn't the night sky full of light?" It is. It is so filled with light as to be dark overall.
 
Last edited:
Helio, I would like your opinion on extrapolation backwards from expansion after the BB. Bearing in mind the steep graphical increase with inflation, followed by subsequent flattening and then (according to choice) increasing expansion . . . . . . how on Earth do they get a straight line extrapolation through 'that lot' back to t = 0??
It would be interesting to see a graphical effort better represent the current expansion rate estimates for all the periods.

The Inflation period would be essentially a vertical line but only to the size of someting like a grapefruit. So, with a y-axis that is now ~ 49 billion lyrs, IIRC, in radius, the 10 cm jump would hardly be plottable even using log scaling, no doubt. :)

The observable universe, so far, only takes us to Recombination (i.e. CMBR). So if we begin there, one (i.e. me :)) can draw a linear version. But, again, I think the scale is off so that the actual changes will be less than illustrated for this time period since 380,000 years, which is 99.997% of time.

Rod may have a better handle on this, so perhaps he will offer something better for us.

The illustrations attempts fairly well at demonstrating that the universe is now accelerating due to the enigmatic DE.

 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Helio, now I am getting confused! Presumably, you added the red lines? If you extrapolate these back to where they meet, it seems to be about another 13 billion years further to the left. Of course, as there is no scale other than the 13 billion years indicated, this is unclear.

Trying to understand your explanation, it seems the vertical axis is not correctly represented, so that the red lines would then meet at the BB. Is this the case?

Cat :) :) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and IG2007
Helio, now I am getting confused! Presumably, you added the red lines? If you extrapolate these back to where they meet, it seems to be about another 13 billion years further to the left. Of course, as there is no scale other than the 13 billion years indicated, this is unclear.
:) That's an interesting observation. The Hubble-Lemitre constant does not seem to apply once we get to Recombination since we only have the CMBR to look at, so far. So those red lines would need to bend down quickly in order to meet rather than assume a linear extrapolation. I doubt this drawing is meant to be that reliable for any of what we wish to use it for. It shows super fast expansion then, after Recombination, a more linear expansion. The orginal expansion rate is associated with galaxies, and not pre-galaxy formation areas, no doubt.

Trying to understand your explanation, it seems the vertical axis is not correctly represented, so that the red lines would then meet at the BB. Is this the case?
Darn, I knew I should have read your entire post before parsing. ;) So, yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
I must be wrong somewhere, but it still seems to me that I have been right all along, in that the Hubble 'InConstant' is not a reliable guide to the BB. I was always 'told' (IIUC) that expansion of the Universe is extrapolated backwards to assume the existence of the BB. I always queried how they could find a reliable extrapolation. I still believe that, but am open to 'education;.

Cat :)

P.S. I do not consider bending red lines as admissible. :) :) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
I must be wrong somewhere, but it still seems to me that I have been right all along, in that the Hubble 'InConstant' is not a reliable guide to the BB. I was always 'told' (IIUC) that expansion of the Universe is extrapolated backwards to assume the existence of the BB. I always queried how they could find a reliable extrapolation. I still believe that, but am open to 'education;.
Remember that the time frame the beginning to Recombination (380,000 year mark) is only the first 0.003% age of the universe, so the age of the universe isn't going to be affected by this hardly at all. :) Averaging this earlier rate will not change the constant unless that period were billions of years of age.

P.S. I do not consider bending red lines as admissible. :) :) :)
Think elastic polymers. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Helio, do you mean that the scales are non-uniform? Jiggled? In the nicest possible way? :) :) :)
Is it possible to modify the diagram to take into account the point you are making, please?
It seems to me that this would do away with inflation?

Cat ;)) ;) ;)
 
Helio, do you mean that the scales are non-uniform? Jiggled? In the nicest possible way? :) :) :)
Is it possible to modify the diagram to take into account the point you are making, please?
It seems to me that this would do away with inflation?

Cat ;)) ;) ;)
Once again, if we use history and see how we got here, it will make more sense, I think.

What Slipher initially found, but greatly improved by Hubble and Humason, was that relationship between apparent velocities (redshifts) and distance. With greater improvements, especially with the use of Type 1a SN, we have a value (~ 72kps/Mpc), though other methods have a different value. Both are close to one another, however.

So we started close, then went farther and farther. We can't yet get that close to the CMBR yet, though perhaps the CMBR suggests a supporting value somehow. If so, I'd like to hear about it.

We just can't extend that almost linear constant (Hubble-Lemaitre constant) to the point we have to bend it to account for incredible expansion in a very short amount of time, as is oversimplified in the nice graph.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Helio, thank you for your patience in addressing my questions.

I am sorry to press my ideas, but I shall continue trying to understand why a retro projection of mixed events is attempted using completely jumbled x and y scalars. If inflation is represented as such a great leap (percentagewise) why is the idea that it is from almost nothing to something not very much larger in real terms? Maybe employ two graphs? One representing the overall picture, with some semblance of a straight line (however unscientific the pseudo constant is portrayed as), and one for the initial tiny period near t = 0.

Using terms, which I detest ( 👹 ) a grapefruit is infinitely larger than something infinitely small.

Cat :) :) :)




Re: the Hubble Inconstant:

View: https://imgur.com/a/zdbFJY6


This assumes the retro extension must pass through the origin, which forces the conclusion that there is a zero velocity (single point), which begs the question. IMHO, it is not the data at fault (though far from accurate) but the forced extrapolation.


See also:

View: https://imgur.com/a/fjadF1O


Source: The Hubble Constant (harvard.edu)

For the general observer, these show Hubble 'Constants' between approximately 50 and 100.
Click on image for full graph if incomplete - usually OK but may be partial.

View: https://imgur.com/a/DX11wh8



From same source.

How many Hubble "Constants" does that make?
 
Last edited:
Helio, thank you for your patience in addressing my questions.
I appreciate and enjoy your questions because if you have them, others without your background will likely be even more puzzled.

If inflation is represented as such a great leap (percentagewise) why is the idea that it is from almost nothing to something not very much larger in real terms? Maybe employ two graphs?
I'm not clear what you mean by "something." The only big something in inflation is its expansion rate. Its size relative to the universe we see is incredibly tiny, less than that of a single drop of water in the Pacific, no doubt.

One representing the overall picture, with some semblance of a straight line (however unscientific the pseudo constant is portrayed as), and one for the initial tiny period near t = 0.
Ok, that's a good idea. Notice the log scale is so large that the logs could be used to make an Aggie bonfire. [Perhaps that's too local a joke.]



Source.
Using terms, which I detest ( 👹 ) a grapefruit is infinitely larger than something infinitely small.
Yes. But to plot it you have to use incredibly small scales. Hopefully the above does this adequately enough.

It seems as if the Hubble-Lemaitre constant (pseudo constant) takes off just after the grapefruit. [Have you ever had a Ruby Red grapefruit? You might be less averse to them as a result. :)] I had assumed the constant would have been much different until, say, the CMBR point, but apparently not.

We can't observe, so far, anything directly past the CMBR period, though the information in the CMBR itself is amazing, that likely supports the H-L constant.


Re: the Hubble Inconstant:
View: https://imgur.com/a/zdbFJY6


This assumes the retro extension must pass through the origin, which forces the conclusion that there is a zero velocity (single point), which begs the question. IMHO, it is not the data at fault (though far from accurate) but the forced extrapolation.
Perhaps my graph helps, but you may very well be correct. When one considers the gravitational field strength of that grapefruit-sized universe, why wouldn't expansion be a little different? Given all the mass is in such a small volume, what is the size of its Event Horizon. Surely the EH is much greater than itself, hence how can it push past it? This is why, no doubt, why the expansion of space is allowed when even photons are not.

Side note: Because I'm one of the very few who will argue Hubble never accepted an expanding universe, I will point out a nit in your first graph. Hubble did not label the y-axis as "recessional velocity", but merely "velocity".

Here is Hubble's 1929 paper that shows his actual graph. More importantly, read the first and last paragraph, which shows why he felt there is a paradox in suggesting that the redshift does not necessarily represent actual velocities. The last paragraph is emphasis on de Sitter's demonstration that redshift is a natural outcome of non-expanding spacetime (but with no mass!). [De Sitter was very quick to recognize Lemaitre's solution to the dilemma he and Einstein had, thanks to your Eddington being one of the few in the world who understood GR well enough to recognize his brilliance. It likely helped that Lemaitre was one of his prior students. :)]


For the general observer, these show Hubble 'Constants' between approximately 50 and 100.
Click on image for full graph if incomplete - usually OK but may be partial.

View: https://imgur.com/a/DX11wh8
Ok, here is my colorful response :).....



I know you're not big on grapefruits -- of course, I'm just messing with you -- but how about apples? "How do you like them apples?" ;) With time, there seems to be a refinement that is constraining the constant to a small range. Rod notes that there are two camps that seem to have supporting evidence for two specific but different constants.

If we go back to the first K values (original term for the apparent expansion rate), we were in the the many hundreds of kps/Mpc. Lemaitre gave us the first, but, oddly, he pulled it out of his English translation paper since Hubble had published his much more accurate work by that time and was fine with giving him the credit, at least this seems to be the case. [There's actually a paper on this curiosity.]
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Helio, there is a lot of meat there to digest, so I shall need a little time.

However, I can answer this quickly:
"Side note: Because I'm one of the very few who will argue Hubble never accepted an expanding universe, I will point out a nit in your first graph. Hubble did not label the y-axis as "recessional velocity", but merely "velocity"."
I reproduced the graph 'as is' and am not responsible for the axis labelling.

Cat ;)
 
Helio, there is a lot of meat there to digest, so I shall need a little time.

However, I can answer this quickly:
"Side note: Because I'm one of the very few who will argue Hubble never accepted an expanding universe, I will point out a nit in your first graph. Hubble did not label the y-axis as "recessional velocity", but merely "velocity"."
I reproduced the graph 'as is' and am not responsible for the axis labelling.

Cat ;)
Yep, I knew that and you gave the link. It is more evidence how minor errors propagate, like tainted sunshine.😜
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY