Crisis in the Big Bang Theory

[smartie]

<br /><br />The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. <br /><br />But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. <br /><br />Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. <br /><br />What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles. <br /><br />Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for un

 

[yevaud]

Pardon me, Smartie (huh. I swear, that looks like I'm calling you a name or something), but that is clearly from a site somewhere. If you're going to post an excerpt from it, you must attribute it. That's in both the TOS as well as the "Fair Usage" laws.<br /><br />In reference to the "Missing Matter" problem, firstly and foremost, we *do* see the effects of it, for example in the rotation of distant Galaxies (which is the clue that there *was* missing matter). Did you read the link previously posted as to Vera Rubin?<br /><br />Further, where do you get the idea that it has to be some sort of exotic matter? Simple common matter will suffice, and most of it does not radiate. There is simply no way to "see" it at any great distance, <i>except by it's gravitational influence on nearby objects</i> (unless, of course, there's an amount sufficient that blocks light from some distant object, another giveaway).<br /><br />Read about the Great Attractor. In point of fact, there is yet further news on this, just today. How ironic you'd brought this issue up: University of Hawaii News Story <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[smartie]

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community <br />cosmologystatement.org <br /><br />(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004) <br /><br />The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. <br /><br />But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. <br /><br />Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. <br /><br />What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cos

 

[yevaud]

You will now please cease spamming this forum. Repeatedly posting the same thing over and over to annoy is a violation of our rules here. <br /><br />If you wish to debate the subject, please feel free to do so. But I'm afraid, IMO, you'll have to come up with a better method than repeating the same reference, not proving your case, and posting unattributed documents.<br /><br />Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Give me a break. We doubt certain issues, and repeat those doubts, yet you continuously rant, in your religious way, your own views. <br /><br />Ranting like this is wrong. Science will only progress with a healthy amount of doubt on issues that promote only certain aspects of philosophical ideology. There is absolutely nothing totally solved yet.<br /><br />Issues are necessary to keep the seeking of truth flowing forward. Opposition is not an enemy. Because you live in some book, or some pretended truth, or some locale where social rules are different, does not mean you have a concept of what total perfection is all about. And neither do I.<br />

 

[yevaud]

Alkalin, repeating the same document over and over, ad-infinitum, is <i>not</i> "debating" the subject. Nor has he explained anything, except to say "this is wrong" and "that is wrong."<br /><br />He's welcome to his opinion, but not to such an extent that he really doesn't debate it, just parrots the same item. He's done so 4 times now.<br /><br />Also, his "Open Letter" and the Rense link are both illegitimate for the purposes of "proof." I can go get my old advisor to sign an open letter, then find 50-60 people with no real expertise in a field, and get them to sign as well - then submit it to a commercial publication too. Is this now "scientific proof?"<br /><br />*That* is my basis for arguing with him. I'd like him to actually engage in debate, not play human copier... <br /><br />Edit: btw, you notice that there's another BB thread here, and they're getting a bit speculative? But I have kept my hands off, as they're still remaining in the arena of science, and not one of them is spamming the thread. This thread is not in the same category. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alkalin]

I also feel frustrated trying to debate people that have made up their minds. They have an answer, and they will defend it to the last. THAT MY FRIEND IS NOT SCIENCE. SO WHAT IS IT?<br /><br />Debate is for the lawyers in the courts to settle simple problems between people that may contest each other. We CANNOT use the same rules on issues far more complex, in fact based on our knowledge, cannot yet be solved. SO TO ME this approach IS A WAIST OF TIME. <br /><br />Debate in these issues is relatively pointless, since we are so far yet from any ultimate truth. There are no ultimate truths that we know about. There are many questions that should and could be asked. You could supply some good answers, I’m sure, but those are only limited to our current understanding of the universe, which might be less than one percent. Prove otherwise? Hey, I could do that easily. Ya sure????<br />

 

[yevaud]

Naah, that is not what I meant.<br /><br />Of what point is it to just keep repeating, "a problem exists here, in my opinion," if you don't at least propose why you think that is, and what your alternative might be?<br /><br />All he's done is provide someone else's sketchy document, and he has not really even discussed issues within it. He must believe it's the truth, sure, accepted.<br /><br />But in what way is this even remotely a discussion about the issue, if his sole response is to metaphorically hold his palm out and basically say "talk to the hand," when you make an objection to what he says?<br /><br />Personally, I have many issues with aspects of Cosmology, Stellar Dynamics, and so on. But in a large sense, the "Big Picture," the model's held up reasonably well. It's a <i>workable</i> theory, even if it's always in flux.<br /><br />It's ironic you made the comment about never knowing the ultimate truth. But that is exactly how all grand theories such as this work: ill fitting, but wearable, so you keep altering and adjusting them.<br /><br />Why there are some scientists who express frustration with things, I perfectly well understand. Trying to figure out what's wrong and why is good as well. But just sniping from the sidelines and saying "this is screwed up" over and over at the powers-that-be is the real waste of time. IMHO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

By the way - I forgot to include this in my previous post - if <i>you</i> want to debate the topic, please feel free. More than happy to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Yevaud,<br /><br />Haha, very funny.<br /><br />Thanks for the offer. If I had the sum of + and – times time on my hands, I might be tempted. <br />

 

[bonzelite]

steady state is not my area, but i don't think it literally means everything stops or attains stasis. you still have dynamic interaction of particles, of (+) and (-), mass, gravitation, expansion of local space, contraction of space, propagation of waves. the whole nine yards. <br /><br />is this what you meant?

 

[yevaud]

Ranur: Steady State implies a constant spontaneous creation of basic particles, everywhere. In short, "matter appearing from nowhere." Something we unfortunately don't see anywhere, which has always been one of the key stumbling blocks with the Steady State Universe theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> constant spontaneous creation of basic particles, everywhere. In short, "matter appearing from nowhere." Something we unfortunately don't see anywhere, </font><br /><br />talk to a QM person and they'll find plenty of matter coming from nowhere. depends on who you talk to. and these people are "mainstream" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

1. It's not quite the same thing.<br /><br />2. ZPE has never been imaged. It's a hypothesis only. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[smartie]

I thought the big bang was supposed to imply spontaneous creation of matter from nothing as well.<br /><br />It is true as you state that QM people apparently see this actually happen. However I personally beleive that this phenomena whether your refering about QM or SS theory is not actually spontaneous creation from nothing. I think that there is some mechanism whereby events of the very large scale effects events at the very small scales. Take the information lost in BHs or information being lost over the observable universe's limit. The laws of thermodynamics forbids the loss of information from the universe. I think somehow this information is transformed into what appears to be the creation of matter out of nothing.<br /> The basic idea is that the whole universe is self contained and kind of creates itself. <br /><br />Its good to hear from you again after suffering the attack on your ideas in a previous thread. There is nothing wrong with critical responses in fact they are healthy and can incourage the person to develop their ideas further. However when it becomes personal, and your ideas are being attacked in order to provoke a negative response then it is best not to play the game.<br /><br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">An eternal steady state universe would be a universe without differences. It would have been in an equilibrium!</font><br /><br />Right. "Steady" state is already wrong. For everything to be steady the universe would have to have a temperature of 0 Kelvin, but we can't have that.<br /><br />What is more likely than a "steady" state universe is a fractal universe. Think of a fractal universe as a animated 3D pattern (most computer generated fractals are overwhelmingly 2 dimensional). A fractal universe will have (and must have) larger objects animated at all scales. Therefore, the larger objects would be able collect much of the waste heat from the planets and stars of trillions of galaxies. This waste heat does not disappear, but it transforms into matter. This is possible through particle pair production which happens near the event horizon of a black hole (supposedly the map of the edge of the universe is really the surface and atmosphere of large black holes each having event horizons spanning hundreds of millions of light years). The particle pair production does not need to involve solely energies leaking through a black hole, it may involve the breakdown of photons as well.<br /><br />The basic parameters which define the big bang are unitless, whose origin is unknowable. On the other hand, in a fractal universe theory, scalars can be used to explain redshift, angular diameter distance, and the distribution of blue galaxies along the map of the edge of the galactic medium where light is most redshifted. The values that determine these are scalar which are defined largely by the masses of the larger objects and their distance from us. The size of the objects would be larger in the sky than Andromeda (several dozens times the size of the full moon) and yet would be as detectable as

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />I thought the big bang was supposed to imply spontaneous creation of matter from nothing as well. </font><br /><br />you answered your own question rhetoricallly. your statement is a logical conclusion and i am glad you picked that up.<br /><br />i was going to go there but cited QM instead as that is backed by myriad "legit" scientists; yet QM --particularly spontaneous creation and destruction of particles-- is nearly as purely based in conjecture as BB. <br /><br />yes, there is a quantum level to matter. yes, hard science is done in this field --i have no quarrel there. i have a problem with the liberties taken in this area to give a sort of cosmic bailout policy to theories that should otherwise be seriously overturned. or put on permanent hold and not passed off as factual. in cosmology, i will purport that, really, we're dealing with very little fact here anymore. that should appear as a surgeon general's warning label on every cosmological treatise for the past 30 years. <br /><br />BB theorists love to invoke the muse of QM to substantiate and buttress a mathematically based science fiction story. you throw in "quantum fluctuations" to the singularity discussion and suddenly you hear a pin drop as all dissenters are given scarlet letters. <br /><br /><font color="orange"><br />Its good to hear from you again after suffering the attack on your ideas in a previous thread. There is nothing wrong with critical responses in fact they are healthy and can incourage the person to develop their ideas further. However when it becomes personal, and your ideas are being attacked in order to provoke a negative response then it is best not to play the game. </font><br /><br />thank you, smartie, i will note your acknowledgement and will remember your kindness and insightfulness <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The laws of thermodynamics forbids the loss of information from the universe. I think somehow th</font>

 

[smartie]

I totally agree with you. Using the term 'steady state' is perhaps not wise. It conjures up the old idea of a static universe. This was the basis of the original theory. When I used the term I was simply implying that the universe is eternal. <br />It is however possible to have a changing universe where it is still held in equilibrium. For example the weather in the atmosphere is chaotic, and temperatures and pressures are constantly changing. However feedback in the system keeps the atmosphere remaining in equilibrium. If it wasn't it would either freeze to the ground or evaporate away. I look at the universe system in the same light. Universal equilibrium is necessary to maintain the exact properties of electrons etc. <br />I too imagine a fractal universe as you do. Further I'm warming to the idea of the Plasma cosmology model that is also a fractal model. I just wish I understood plasma a little better.<br /><br />

 

[kyle_baron]

I thought the big bang was supposed to imply spontaneous creation of matter from nothing as well. <br /><br />you answered your own question rhetoricallly. your statement is a logical conclusion and i am glad you picked that up. <br /><br />i was going to go there but cited QM instead as that is backed by myriad "legit" scientists; yet QM --particularly spontaneous creation and destruction of particles-- is nearly as purely based in conjecture as BB. <br /><br />Don't forget that the elementary particles (photons, electrons) are also waves. I just finished reading the<br />book The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene (the best<br />$16 I ever spent). On page 395-396 he talks about<br />empty space, waves, and particles. I'll paraphrase<br />what he said. But, before I begin, where he says the <br />word amplitude, I substituted in the word size, in order<br />to make it easier to comprehend:<br /><br />...when applied to wave disturbances in a field (electromagnetic waves traveling in the electromagnetic<br />field) the uncertainty principle shows that the size of a<br />wave and the speed with which it's size changes, are subject to the same inverse relationship as the position and speed of a particle. The more precisely the size, the less we know about the speed with which it's size<br />changes. Now, when we say that a region of space is empty, we typically mean that there are no waves passing through it, and that all fields have a zero value.<br />We can rephrase this by saying that the sizes of all waves passing through the region are zero, exactly. But if we know the size exactly, the uncertainty principle implies that the rate of change of the size is completely uncertain, and can take on essentially any value. But if the sizes change, this means that in the next moment the waves will no longer be zero, even though the region of space is still empty. ON AVERAGE, the field will be zero since at some places it's value will be positive while others negitive; the net energy <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

kyle, that's interesting. but there is a "but," of course, to my enthusiasm for this:<br /><br />space itself is derived from the expansion and is one and the same with time. there is no spacetime pre-BB. and nothing existed that is defined by laws of this universe; it is divorced from all connection with anything here. even mentioning e=mc² or + and - have no context or meaning in this vein. <br /><br />and, if you think about it, your 2 infinite sized space branes are of another immutable and infinite condition, unable to come together. linear thinking in terms of coming together to meet --that no longer applies. there is no bringing together, cleaving, mutating, merging, subtracting from, an infinite state. <br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange">It is however possible to have a changing universe where it is still held in equilibrium. For example the weather in the atmosphere is chaotic, and temperatures and pressures are constantly changing. However feedback in the system keeps the atmosphere remaining in equilibrium. </font><br /><br />right. i think steady state as a term is being used quite loosely, or incorrectly, and is being butchered to death to imply deadness or stasis. that is not at all what steady state terminology means. there would be no opposing forces or interactions without an interplay of material and energy, even if that is within an infinite state. the infinite state is stable, and infinite, with constantly changing and shifting regions of itself --forever. <br /><br />i don't understand the fixation of big bang to create accelerated expansion as the only means in the imagination for movement of particulate matter or space anywhere. where did that thinking derive from?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">But I still dont get it. Why do energy move between the fractals for ever? Why isnt everything just settling down as in all closed systems?</font><br /><br />Because in a (non-closed) universe fractal, there is no closed system.<br /><br />In an eternal fractal, there is also no heat death, so those needs have to be addressed as well.<br /><br />A universe fractal must be able to recycle all the heat that escapes planets, stars, and galaxy, or else such a fractal is just not eternal.<br /><br />One idea is that our observable universe is a gluon (being transmitted between quarks) which is a small part of a higher fractal level. The beginning and end of this transmission involves the conversion of radiation into matter (thus completing a cycle required for the maintainence of mass level in the universe). Matter diverges into radiation in our part of the universe, so therefore, for it to be recycled, the radiation must converge into mass, and that requires some alignment the only really large black holes can give.<br /><br />The edge of the universe is really an event horizon surface, and the surface of such black holes that also gives way to gamma ray bursts which lead to the cosmic background radiation. Two of these large black holes would make up a peanut shaped quark (see the picture below).<br /><br />For these quarks (the quantum equivalents of black holes) confinement keeps our universe together and is able to contact other particles. Despite the escape velocity being practically c due to quark confinement quarks can still interact with the outside to an infinite reach with the quarks of the still higher fractal level, because they are not stationary.<br /><br />A year for a gluon inside one of one of our atoms would correspond to many orders of magnitude longer in years for our universe as a whole. The value I suspect is a value of 10^41 times longer.<br /><br />http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=</safety_wrapper

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">One idea is that our observable universe is a gluon (being transmitted between quarks) which is a small part of a higher fractal level.<br /><br /><font color="white">Oh dear, Kmar you're begining to spout gibberish again. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /></font></font>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Oh dear, Kmar you're begining to spout gibberish again.</font><br /><br />Why is it jibberish?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">One idea is that our observable universe is a gluon (being transmitted between quarks) which is a small part of a higher fractal level.</font><br /><br />The sentence plainly states that is an idea. What so hard to understand about that?

 

[yevaud]

<i>One idea is that our observable universe is a gluon (being transmitted between quarks) which is a small part of a higher fractal level.</i><br /><br />He means that the sentence (and concept) in question makes no sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>