Inflationary Theory:Theory of "Big Bang" or "Big Bangs"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
An extraordinary burst of expansion in the very early stages of the universe inflated the size of the cosmos by a factor of 1050. This contrasts with the standard big-bang model, which has the universe expanding at an ever-decreasing rate as gravity tries to pull all the matter back together.<br /> <br />The big-bang theory does a remarkable job of describing the universe we see today: It explains the expansion of the universe, predicts the correct abundances of hydrogen and helium (the most common elements in the universe), and accounts for the cosmic background radiation. Few scientists today doubt its validity.<br /> <br /> Despite its successes, the standard big-bang theory was too simple to be complete. For example, it offered no reason why the temperature of the background radiation remains remarkably constant over the entire sky, varying by no more than one part in 100,000. In the standard big-bang model, the constituents of the early universe could not all interact with one another, so there was no way for them all to reach the same temperature. Another problem is that the universe appears very nearly flat, existing right on the knife edge between being open and closed. In the standard big-bang model, the only way to explain these observations is to have the universe start out with a uniform temperature and at the critical density.<br /><br /> In 1980, the American physicist Alan Guth devised a way around these problems. He theorized that shortly after the Big Bang (10-35 seconds, or 100 billion trillion trillionths of a second, to be exact), the universe underwent a period of extraordinarily rapid expansion, inflating its size by a factor of 1050.<br /><br /> Before this inflationary period, the universe’s constituents would have been in contact with one another, so they would have reached the same temperature. And the rapid inflation would make the universe’s expansion appear very flat, in the same way that the surface of a balloon blown up by such a huge <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font size="2"><p align="center"><br /><img id="a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/2/a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917.Large.gif" alt="blog post photo" /><br /><font color="#339966">Oops! this is my alien friend.</font></p><p align="center"><font color="#ff6600">╬→Ť╠╣є ’ M€ ’<br />╬→ Ðôŵņ2Ëãřŧĥ ๑<br />╬→ ЙДm€ :Varsha<br /></font></p></font></strong> </div>
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Astronomers have made high precision measurements of this radiation, finding that it arrives at Earth with the same intensity from all directions, to the extraordinary accuracy of about 1/1000 of a percent. Tracing the history of this radiation backwards in time, cosmologists conclude that the temperature and the density of matter in the universe must have been uniform to this accuracy when the cosmic background radiation was released, about 300,000 years after the big bang. Without inflation, this extreme uniformity of the early universe must be assumed, but cannot be explained. Calculations show that without inflation there would not have been nearly enough time for this uniformity to come about, so one is forced to assume, without explanation, that the universe was uniform from its very beginning. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font size="2"><p align="center"><br /><img id="a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/2/a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917.Large.gif" alt="blog post photo" /><br /><font color="#339966">Oops! this is my alien friend.</font></p><p align="center"><font color="#ff6600">╬→Ť╠╣є ’ M€ ’<br />╬→ Ðôŵņ2Ëãřŧĥ ๑<br />╬→ ЙДm€ :Varsha<br /></font></p></font></strong> </div>
 
L

lukman

Guest
I have thought that way too, Big Bangs more make sense than Big Bang. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
The BB theory has failed on its inability to predict anything accurately, but people still try to support it with bogus math and other notions that are absolutely mystical. There is no logic whatsoever in some of those ideas. Where do you think some of the star energy is going? There is a mechanism called black body radiation, and original thinking from physics was that there should be a MBR due to stars everywhere, and predicted it to be 1 to 5 degree K. The astronomers missed this one completely. Cosmologists do not allow any black body radiation in the universe because they can’t afford to give up any MBR from the BB, a very unrealistic view. So what is real? <br /><br />One main problem with an expansion theory only is that it totally fails to provide a reasonable view of the universe. How can we see a point of origin way in the past way out there yet our galaxy has been right here all this time? One other failure I might mention is that if everything came from a point, then we must see a familiar pattern of galaxies as we look further into the past. There are numerous other failures as well, such as not as young a universe out there as there should be. In fact some of it looks far too old. Shall I continue?<br />
 
W

weeman

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> How can we see a point of origin way in the past way out there yet our galaxy has been right here all this time? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />Our galaxy hasn't necessarily been in the same spot all the time. From our point of view, the Milky Way is at the center of our observable universe, but not at the center of the material universe. If I hopped in a ship and traveled to a galaxy 5 billion lightyears away from here, it too would be at the center of its own observable universe. So, no matter where the Milky Way travels to, it will appear that everything moves away from us, while we stay in one position. If mankind could survive long enough, the observable universe would become bigger and bigger. If our observable universe extends to 14 billion lightyears today, then in 5 billion years from now it will expand to 19 billion lightyears.<br /><br />We see the origin of the Universe in every direction because everything in the universe started at the same point. There was no space, there was no Universe, anything and everything started from the same point. <br /><br />With space being so big, and light not being able to travel instantaneously, we can see further into the past the further we look into space. Eventually, we look so far into space, that we see objects whos light has taken nearly the entire existence of the Universe just to reach us. <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>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
Although some of your points are valid, what you offer is purely science based ‘standard’ notions that try to explain first cause and it does not. The best it can do is ignore more complicated reality because it cannot explain a much more complicated picture which we cannot put into math or science notions.<br /><br />As you can tell by now I do not accept these notions you have elaborated on, the standard fair that I am very familiar with. There is good reason to explore these issues because we cannot ever know first cause in any concrete way.<br /><br />If you have read any of my other posts, then you would know that I prefer a QSS view that does allow expansion, but of a different kind than the notions of big bang. But I get the feeling you have not done so. In fact I think you do not seem to understand the point I tried to make about the starting point. <br /><br />How can we create a good picture of reality if we ignore obvious clues that contradict what our notions are in a complicated reality? I feel part of the problem is that we have the notion that we can explain the universe in a simple fashion, which may turn out to be totally untrue. <br />
 
W

weeman

Guest
I wouldn't say I am 100% for the big bang model, it certainly does not explain all the occurences that go on in the Universe. The thing that I always keep in mind when studying the Universe, is that things are not always what they seem. Although much of the basic physics that we use here on Earth can apply to the physics of the Universe, there are still many questions that go unanswered.<br /><br />The Universe can be very deceiving. Like I said earlier, if light could travel instantaneously, the Universe would look radically different, and we might have many more of our questions answered. However, the fact that space is so incredibly vast, we have to wait for light to reach us to get the results.<br /><br />The big bang supports the fact why distant galaxies appear to be younger, and it also supports its apparent expansion. However, what we see may be a trick of light. Since we can only see objects in our observable universe, we really have no idea what the material universe might actually look like in present day. Maybe the Universe is already collapsing, but the light from the collapsing Universe hasn't reached us yet to tell us this information. The big bang model still leaves many things unanswered.<br /><br />It certainly is a complicated reality that we live in. Although we may not actually know anything of the Universe as it really exists, we use theories to the best of our knowledge to explain this vast space that we live in. <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>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
<font color="yellow">The big bang supports the fact why distant galaxies appear to be younger, and it also supports its apparent expansion.</font><br /><br />Are you aware of the Johns Hopkins studies of very distant galaxies using very sophisticated spectrographic techniques? You cannot examine light yet with better methods. There are in fact young galaxies scattered throughout the universe. They are here in our back yard so to speak, and they are at the edge of what we currently study for the edge of the universe. The JH study also found many large and older galaxies out there as well. This is a serious failure for BB theory. How many of these older and large galaxies at eleven or more billion LYs distant must we discover to convince you there is a serious problem with BB?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">However, what we see may be a trick of light.</font><br /><br />The red shift of light is no trick. It is real data measured by spectrographic methods. But the reason given for red shifting can be out of date, since no other reason than Doppler could be given 50 years ago. That is no longer true.<br /><br />But you do make a valid point that what we see in the distant universe is way in the past, and depending on the current theory you prefer, the universe could be very different than we see now, or it could be very similar.<br />
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<i><br /> The JH study also found many large and older galaxies out there as well. This is a serious failure for BB theory. How many of these older and large galaxies at eleven or more billion LYs distant must we discover to convince you there is a serious problem with BB? </i><br /><br />I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a failure of BB Theory. But it's definitely a weakness. Halton Arp says that galaxies beget galaxies, from the quasar ejections. This could be an explanation for the young galaxies near their older parent galaxies.<br /><i><br /> But the reason given for red shifting can be out of date, since no other reason than Doppler could be given 50 years ago. That is no longer true. </i><br /><br />Agreed. Halton Arp again-Intrinsic Redshift. Both concepts are discussed at this link:<br /><br />http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
Kyle_baron - thanks for the link.<br /><br />I have Arp’s book and it is a good read. I think his story is very telling of the situation we have in academia and in the review system. Another good read is Eric Lerner’s book, The Big Bang Never Happened.<br /><br />But there is another reason for red shift that I find preferable to Narlikar’s concept. It is not conjecture. Since about the mid eighties lab work was done that verified that light does shift to red in what is called correlation. This occurs when matter is present and photons can interact with gaseous matter. This tells me that quasars have a lot of gas present, so there would be considerable correlation going on. The distant universe has intergalactic gas, so red shift due to correlation occurs there as well. But try to convince astronomers of that. Called the Wolf effect, you can get a good article on it at:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_effect<br /><br />So much of what we find in the universe makes much more sense if the Wolf effect is applied instead of Doppler. I predict astronomy will accept this idea eventually. But it requires a rather major paradigm shift and is not easy for any institution to do. Quasi-steady state is the way, because some of the current mystical ideas will be solved. There will still be other problems to contend with.<br /><br />
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
Narlikar wonders how something came out of nothing andhe is a co proponent of quasi steady state theory.Interestingly I ,Cherry ,who initiated this post and Narlikar are all Indians.
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Narlikar wonders how something came out of nothing andhe is a co proponent of quasi steady state theory.<br /></font><br />On the largest scale (in the universe as a whole) space is flat. Therefore, I would have to agree with Narlikars more general form of Einstein's General Relativity. This is a quote from the link I gave previously:<br /><i><br />In Narlikar's theory, relativity's singularities are abolished. When masses are allowed to vary, the singularities turn into nice, tame "zero mass hyper surfaces:" i.e., locations for the very matter creation suggested by astronomical observation! <br />Narlikar's theory also abolishes curved space, that trademark of relativity, cliche of science fiction, and nemesis of all who attempt to visualize it. Astonishingly, merely by allowing masses to vary with time, one allows one's "space-time" to relax and lie flat, just as Euclid told us it must! </i><br /><br />My question is with this statement " by allowing masses to vary with time". Does he mean, that all the stars that are changing mass to energy (E=mc2) are loosing mass all over the universe? And therefore, space is flattening around them?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
Rejection of some notion such as singularities that do not actually exist seems very reasonable. Any math that creates something that is not real is a risk to use. Rather than Einstein relativity, Lorentz relativity may be more appropriate, but I have not looked into this enough to know. <br /><br />http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp<br /><br />I find it likely that mass remains constant in the observable universe, but is capable of changing form, i.e. photons, etc. which change into mass again at another location. But this suggests that photons are real substance, not just energy, which I think they are, and requires Lorentz relativity to handle this.<br />
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Why doesn't we start accepting this theory?<br />Why is "big bang" such a famous theory?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font size="2"><p align="center"><br /><img id="a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/2/a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917.Large.gif" alt="blog post photo" /><br /><font color="#339966">Oops! this is my alien friend.</font></p><p align="center"><font color="#ff6600">╬→Ť╠╣є ’ M€ ’<br />╬→ Ðôŵņ2Ëãřŧĥ ๑<br />╬→ ЙДm€ :Varsha<br /></font></p></font></strong> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />Why doesn't we start accepting this theory? </font><br /><br />Because it isn't complete. There are questions, like why are there larger older galaxies near the smaller and younger galaxies, that are billions of years away? There should only be smaller younger galaxies.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Why is "big bang" such a famous theory? </font><br /><br />Because it is based on Einstein's General Relativity.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font size="2"><p align="center"><br /><img id="a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/2/a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917.Large.gif" alt="blog post photo" /><br /><font color="#339966">Oops! this is my alien friend.</font></p><p align="center"><font color="#ff6600">╬→Ť╠╣є ’ M€ ’<br />╬→ Ðôŵņ2Ëãřŧĥ ๑<br />╬→ ЙДm€ :Varsha<br /></font></p></font></strong> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY