If no big bang, what happened?

[weeman]

We all know that the theory of the Big Bang is one of the most widely accepted theories within the science community.<br /><br />However, I am curious what everyone's personal view is on this subject. I have seen many of you post messages that say you don't believe in the theory that the universe originated from a big bang.<br /><br />So, what's your belief?<br /><br />I'm also interested in articles that anyone can find of other theories, or evidence that disproves the big bang theory.<br /><br />If the Universe didn't begin with a big bang, how has it come to be? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Excellent Question!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

it didn't come to be. it's always becoming.

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />I'm also interested in articles that anyone can find of other theories, or evidence that disproves the big bang theory. </font><br /><br />This one is a classic:<br />http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[why06]

personally I dont think I have the knowledge to make that kind of decision....<br /><br />And nice one "bonz-elite" very "philosophical" LOL <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />You should write a book.<br /><br /><br />Ps: {dont really, I was being sarcastic} <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[scepterium]

The only explanation possible is that the universe came from nothing. Although I'm not suggesting that nothing is actually something, a mere word is all it is. So it's really only proper to say that the universe has always existed. Since saying the universe came from nothing implies that nothing is actually something. I still believe it's possible that our known universe could have begun from a big bang though.<br />

 

[weeman]

Yes, this topic is right up your alley Bonzelite <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Thanks for the article Kyle, that is incredible stuff, it's certainly one of the more interesting articles that I've read in a while.<br /><br />The part near the end where they explain why we see redshifts in ever direction, is mind boggling! After reading this, I think I can certainly look both ways, and accept that the Big Bang model might be flawed.<br /><br />Not to say I no longer believe in the Big Bang theory, but this article has valid evidence to support Arp's argument. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

Myself. I tend to lean , currently, in the direction of the M-theory, which curiously enough , can even support the big bang as a collision of 4 dimensional branes in a 12 dimensional space time.<br /><br /> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

thank you guys, why06 and weeman. <br /><br />what is the seed of creation is active as we speak. the beginning is under our own noses, and the answer is in a constant state of becoming. but it's so elusive and simple as to be hidden. <br /><br />if you want to know, go outdoors and look at the beautiful day as it unfolds in the passing moments, and this is how we got here. by becoming from moment to moment.

 

[search]

Every evening, weather permitting, I look up to the stars and I wonder why is that they are there and I am here.<br /><br />Then I start digging in the inner dust covered drawers of my brain for explanations and I always stop short of of finding one as if there was not enough drawers in it or the last drawer would not be allowed to be opened.<br /><br />Therefore I just cannot talk about the Big Bang or any other creation theory without selecting a road that leads to it.<br /><br />I believe the main problem is that so many roads lead to something that we do not know which road will ultimately will lead to our origins.<br /><br />We barely know part of some of the roads between aproximately 13,7 Billion Light Years (1 light year = 9.4605284 × 1015 m) and roughly 100 Attometers (10ˆ-16m).<br /><br />Secret Worlds: The Universe Within<br /><br />And yet we are so interested about the most distant point of all...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[search]

One thing that puzzels me a lot is the fact that most scientists attempt to find this perfect formula, elegant and well defined and yet the universe although beautifull is everything less than elegant and well defined. <br /><br />The solar sytems is full of all kinds of objects (though we gather them according to dubious models], the stars are all different and yet we standardize them, the galaxies varie in size and shape and we classify them.<br /><br />Even in motion although we find some affinities, it is a great universal mess. Planets revolve around (rotating differently) stars, some in one direction others in another, some thumbling some inclined, some whobbeling, stars alone stars orbiting other stars, spinning slow and wild, stars orbiting galaxy centers, galaxies have their gravitational cohesion but clusters, nebulae and gas clouds maintain their structures and the arms of the galaxies also, galaxies receed from each other and they also attract each other.<br /><br />Elegant theory needed?

 

[docm]

The Big Electron said "Let There Be George Carlin!!" and the rest flowed from that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[weeman]

Isn't the fact that the Universe is so seemingly chaotic and random the reason that it is beautiful? If everything was exactly the same throughout the entire Universe, it would be dull and boring. There would be nothing to discover that would be new or different.<br /><br />Take our solar system for example, when almost all the planets rotate at similar angles on their axes, Uranus is completely tilted on its side, making it stand out from all the other planets. Of course, we can also take Venus into consideration, since it rotates in the opposite direction of Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

I am not sure what puzzles you or what is the problem if there is one<br /><br />I believe it is way too soon to look for some ultimate all encompasing formula and all who do look for such are misguided but looking for such neat formulas in the world around is perfectly legitimate and also the only way to understand it<br /><br />in classification of objects we look at what is essential about them and categorize them accordingly and some objects can be part of several such categories depending on what essentials we look at (like in categorizing ourselves, that is men, we say we are mamals which classes us in one category with cows for example but when the criterion of classification becomes rationality, the cows are out from that category)<br /><br />but I am sure you know all that and I still don't see what you tried to say there<br /><br />perhaps this might get to the root? - because everything is something determinate and has to do as its identity dictates there is underlying regularity in nature and because everything while while it is determinate has within that determinacy a scope for indeterminate behaviour there is surface diversity in nature and intelligent minds can see under that surface and categorize the nature that way<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<font color="yellow">Isn't the fact that the Universe is so seemingly chaotic and random the reason that it is beautiful?</font><br />you said 'seemingly' which implies that we are able to see under the surface chaotics and randomness and that IMO is why we can talk about beautiful in respect to nature, it is precisely our ability as rational beings to see behind the surface of nature that we can class it as beautifull, what is beautifull about nature is its underlying regularity that we alone can perceive, if nature was chaotic all the way down or at least deeper than we could see, than we would find it ugly and would be covering (per necessity) in some caves till this day, I mean if you could ask some savage ancestor living in prehistoric days of mankind before man's mind were capable of sufficient reasoning... if he thought the world was beautifull, I doubt very much he would eulogize like you nowadays<br /><br />oh, my belief on the origin of universe: it has always been here and oscilated back and forth between expansion and contraction with the latter ending in some mini 'big bang' when the density of matter increased to some critical point (still far from any singularity), this view is called 'quasi steady (oscilating) universe' I think<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[search]

Since the most scientists are trying to get us all believing in some sort of magic universe formula it might as well be the 10 Commandments of Physics and if you do not like it get George Carlin to revise them as he did with the Religious ten commandments...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">Isn't the fact that the Universe is so seemingly chaotic and random the reason that it is beautiful?</font><br /><br />Absolutely YES <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">I am not sure what puzzles you or what is the problem if there is one <br /><br />(...)<br /><br />but I am sure you know all that and I still don't see what you tried to say there <br /><br />perhaps this might get to the root? - because everything is something determinate and has to do as its identity dictates there is underlying regularity in nature and because everything while while it is determinate has within that determinacy a scope for indeterminate behaviour there is surface diversity in nature and intelligent minds can see under that surface and categorize the nature that way <br /></font><br /><br />Puzzled by the fact that we keep sowing the physics fabric instead of starting from scratch a new fabric...I do think that matter and energy are determinable but there must be limits to what we can know and predict.

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Puzzled by the fact that we keep sowing the physics fabric instead of starting from scratch a new fabric...I do think that matter and energy are determinable but there must be limits to what we can know and predict.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'd put it this way: average minds have to 'sow the physics fabric' because they can't do any better and starting 'from scratch with a new fabric' is the domain of messiahs that come on scene only very seldom and untill one does appear, nothing earth shaking can come about and physicists may be forced to wear their old clothing fabric to tatters and even run stark naked if it comes to that<br /><br />currently we are nowhere near any limits and if there is some limit to our understanding, it is so far off as to make the limit non-existent in practice (of course that's assuming one asks only valid questions of nature, if one were to ask whence did everything come from for example, he would not get any answer ever but that wouldn't represent any such limit as we have in mind here but merely the limit of irrationality which is close around us right now and always will be close at hand<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

DOUBLE: <b>"YES!""YES!"</b><br /><br />I can not tell you how much it would suck if all the mysteries of the universe were figured out. We all say we want to solve the universe, but I think a scientist's ultimate ambition is what he fears most. Really I don't know what I would do if... you know...there was nothing left <i>to</i> "DO". Can you dig it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[search]

Can dig that but no worries in my lifetime...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[alkalin]

Good question. Big Bang has always run into problems, especially with predictions, and needed to invent makeshift solutions, which have created even more problems.<br /><br />I think it boils down to making the wrong assumption of the cause of the red shift seen in the distant universe. In the early days, there were notions of Doppler and ‘tired light’ competing, but since adherents of tired light had no mechanism, the notions of Doppler won and became institutionalized. What happens if a mechanism is now found for ‘tired light’, not only that but it can be studied in the lab, which is what began to occur in the eighties.<br /><br />However, it seems to me we are not likely to come up with a theory that would replace the current momentum of big bang, which would be a major paradigm shift and would take a genius on friendly terms with the media to make the change, and that person is not me. So for the time being we will limp along with big bang. Sooner or later it will be replaced for the reason that when we look at the distant universe, we will always see old galaxies out there, no matter how far away they are, plus all the other issues that may eventually be explained with a better theory.<br /><br />An alternate view based on a much different mechanism of red shift would allow a universe that does not expand according to big bang, but still might be in some growth process. Unfortunately astronomers have modified some views to fit the big bang concept that is unfavorable to most other views. For example, they think the universe is so devoid of intergalactic matter that it must be ignored. I find this very biased toward the notions of big bang. We have investigated polarized light coming from intergalactic space and it clearly indicated much more matter in those regions than previously thought. Polarization is an indirect means of finding what is there because this matter is dark and we cannot see it directly. Intergalactic matter is vital to alternate theories, bec

 

[weeman]

I might have missed it in the article, does Arp's theory of the redshifts have a specific name?<br /><br />Basically, from what I understand of the redshifts being in relation to a particle's age, we see stronger redshifts with younger galaxies.<br /><br />Would this be a good analogy?<br /><br />If you could theoretically look at a tree that is 30 lightyears away, you will see the tree very small, because you see its light when it was much younger. In present day, the tree may be very large because it has grown over those 30 years. Now, its differences in size would relate to its age, not its direction of travel towards or away from you. If you observed the tree each year, and noticed it getting bigger each year, it wouldn't mean that the tree is getting closer to you. This might state that the Universe is not expanding like it appears. The redshifts do not indicate the direction of travel of the galaxies, it merely reflects their age.<br /><br />I'm not sure if it's a very good analogy at all, but I am trying to better understand Arp's theory.<br /><br />As we look further into space, we see galaxies as they were a long tim ago, meaning we see them when they were younger. The redshifts are not due to the doppler shift, they relate more to the fact that the galaxies are of younger age. So, a galaxy at 10bly will show a stronger redshift than say, Andromeda. <br /><br />Arp's theory is entirely new to me, I am trying to grasp his concepts <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

In addition to my statement, how would Arp's theory explain the CMBR? <br /><br />Any answer is appreciated <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[search]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/cosmo.htm<br />In summary regarding Redshift<br />One of the pilars of the big Bang theory is redshift (the others are CMBR and the abundance of light materials in the universe like hydrogen and helium).<br /><br />Redshift is explained the following way: the galaxies spectral lines are displaced towards the red or long-wavelength end of the spectrum as compared with similar spectra on earth meaning that galaxies are rushing apart at great speed and that the universe is expanding; from this it was inferred that the universe originated in a Big Bang. No expansion of space is observable within our own solar system or galaxy,but between galaxy clusters and superclusters it is assumed that the stretching of space must be taking place. Therefore a Doppler effect, since the galaxies remain stationary while space itself expands<br /><br />The problem is that the redshifts of all 22 major companion galaxies in our Local Group and the next major group are systematically higher than that of the central galaxy however it should be higher or lower in relation to central galaxy due to their orbital velocity around it.<br /><br />Arp theory says that excess redshifts means younger ages and to explain this he suggests that suggest that:<br /><br />"instead of elementary particles having constant mass, as orthodox science assumes, they come into being with zero mass, which then increases, in steps, as they age. When electrons in younger atoms jump from one orbit to another, the light they emit is weaker, and therefore more highly redshifted, than the light emitted by electrons in older atoms. To put it another way: as particle mass grows, frequency (clock rate) increases and therefore redshift decreases.<br />(...) Arp suggests that redshift quantization could be due to episodes of matter creation taking place at regular intervals."<br /><br />Regarding CMBR<br />" In