The Big Bang- It time to settle this once and for all!!!

raghara2 · Apr 25, 2006

If light would lose energy it would change color to red. Spectral information would stay the same.

Saiph · Apr 25, 2006

kmar, you're second post <hr /> Incredible lack of knowledge. the whole spectra of these stars is shifted to the red, that's why it's called the red shift. this is not seen in stars nearby us, in our galaxy, or in nearby galaxies for that matter. It's only seen in stars or galaxies travelling very much faster, AWAY from us. Right again, Saiph.<hr /> Wasn't mine, that was steves. why06: If light loses energy, it becomes more red, but the spectral information is shifted too. Take a pure emission spectrum for hydrogen. You have only 3 visible lines (well, 4 if you've got good eyes). These lose energy, and all three lines shift to the red, giving you the same pattern, but at a lower wavelength. The only way to do this, btw, is by relative velocity differences (i.e. doppler shifting). A theory commonly refered to as "tired light" was proposed as a way for light to lose energy all on it's own, but it didn't pass various observational tests, and has been discarded. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Apr 26, 2006

why06 - Try to ignore posts you find insulting. And focus on the pursuit of answers to questions which is a far happier focus! You posted concerning the center of our universe and expansion out from that center: "I believe it is at this geometric point is the Chronological center. If this universe did inflate then somebody had to be blowing in space time. If anybody." Well, the latter would be God, I believe. And involving many forms of energy and power, possibly including dark energy. See Isaiah 40:22,26. [e.g. stretching out heavens, plural forms of energy and power] Some describe the geometric center as a singularity - that may or may not be accurate. It could also be a very tiny geometrical point whose radius was less than Planck length but not zero. We do not know much about physics at lengths less than Planck length. If anyone has a link or can post on this, I would be very interested. BTW- some would say there is no 3-d center. Certainly in view of our small scope of view and the nature of expansion, every point in our observable universe appears to be like a center. However, on a grand scale including far beyond our visibility horizon our universe may indeed be 3-d spherical with a center - I know not! Isaiah 40:22 describes the expansion of our universe as being like a stretching fine gauze - that model does not require a 3-d center - but does allow for it. The problem is that we apparently can only observe a small portion of the entire stretching fine gauze with its threads and filaments. Therefore our impression of shape and properties may be flawed - rather like our earth appears flat on a local scale, when it is actually round (Isaiah 40-:22). Notably, however, Isaiah 40 does not state the heavens are round (Hebrew: hhug at Isaiah 40:22 for the round earth is circle in 2-d and sphere in 3-d). In a mathematical sens

bonzelite · Apr 26, 2006

The problem is that we apparently can only observe a small portion of the entire stretching fine gauze with its threads and filaments. Therefore our impression of shape and properties may be flawed - rather like our earth appears flat on a local scale, when it is actually round (Isaiah 40-:22). i somewhat agree w/this. the cosmos only presents to us what our human senses, and instrumentation derived from them, are able to perceive. IMHO, the universe is nothing like what we examine it to be with our physical instruments or conceptual models. and i don't at all believe the universe actually "began" in the manner that is thought to be a linear progression from an initial seed of infinite density to what we see today. it is like saying "look, the earth --she's flat like a pancake." and this same perception applies to our idea of creation of the cosmos, replete with models of it's structure that do not describe it's true nature, which, in my opinion, is eternal and non-expanding.

nova_explored · Apr 26, 2006

""again showing a dreadful lack of knowledge in astronomy. the big Bang is the most successful model of astrophysics. Those who believe otherwise are disconnected from the scientific world, by more than just learning..... "" stevehw33 i thankyou for your crass ad hominem remarks. and in the words of bartholemew Simpson - "get bent, man." i only wondered where the skeptics of the model weren't chiming in? it said nothing of MY position. how generous and noble of you to radically assume as such. as for a dreadful lack of knowledge in astronomy, well, that was kindly dramatic a statement of you. personally i actually subscribe to the model of BB. but being a student of physics, i'm not to concerned with what happened after the initial 10(to the -35) seconds, even though it is fascinating to read, but what happened in the period before cosmic inflation. so maybe that is where my dreadful lack of knowledge in astronomy comes from. but having not expressed any personal views as such, what do you know, right? oh yeah, <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> lest we forget the first rule in crass displays of character one must end with an emoticon. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

why06 · Apr 26, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> this is not seen in stars nearby us, in our galaxy, or in nearby galaxies for that matter. It's only seen in stars or galaxies travelling very much faster, AWAY from us. <hr /></blockquote> In that case It's not spacetime that is expanding, but the galaxy's that are moving. If it was space time explain why something that has no physical basis be expanding at different rates. Oh, but its not. Lets put it like this in order for space time to expand are univeres would need to be in an infinite void. Then space time would spread out much like air fills a room, but the rate of exspansion would be even, And thats only if you believe exspansion at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

why06 · Apr 26, 2006

It is theoretically impossible for light to lose energy because it has no mass, but who knows perhaps einstein was wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

why06 · Apr 26, 2006

Light does not lose energy. How would you describe light enrgy when it has no mass excet when at rest? The atom loses energy. It's why as fire gets hotter it turns from yellow to red to blue. Once the electron jumps it releases a certain spectrum of light. Light does not lose energy by interacting with space-time <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

why06 · Apr 26, 2006

Also... I have another question for any one who would like to take it on. -What I was saying was that, even on an infitnite plane, I f somehow one was to connect every ATOM In the UNIVERSE. It would come out like some sort of 3-D shape. Now find its center...because gravrity stretches time and space...... In the place with the least gravity there shoul be an infinitely small point in which time began. I believe the Universe is like a timeline and travelng slowest in the center because it is stretched the most. and fastest in the outer regions of space. This center geometricall should also be the center Chronologically. Basically what I mean is that if you traveled here you could see a singularity of Plank Time. So what do you all think is it possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

why06 · Apr 26, 2006

Very interesting post. I was waait for some feed back on this idea. Unfortunately I, like everyone esle, Know nothing of Plank Time. To Imagine the universe before physics is hard to imagine. Also what realy are physics...A side-effect of matter or of space-time or a demension in itself? -no body has to answer this one I'm just posting it so I can remember to bring it up some time. Oh, and thanks for the advice Newtonian- It's okay to dis-agree, but at least give a reason. I'm sorry I'm supposedly so DUMB because I didn't know that ions of hydrogen gives off certain lines of color distinct to it... I mean Dang. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

raghara2 · Apr 26, 2006

" It is theoretically impossible for light to lose energy because it has no mass, but who knows perhaps einstein was wrong. " It could be reradiated at lower wavelenght, and have lower energy. How would you think 1MW anti tank laser works?

why06 · Apr 26, 2006

What your doing is adding more light particles-photons-,but the actual photon does not gain strength. - Oh! and if your trying too make an anology try not using the words: "1MW anti tank laser" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

Saiph · Apr 26, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />IMHO, the universe is nothing like what we examine it to be with our physical instruments or conceptual models. <hr /></blockquote> So, you're saying our direct observations of what is happening aren't to be trusted? So how is any science supposed to be done. I can understand some uncertainty as to the conceptual interpretations and models that try to explain it, but when you see a star explode, or identify elements in a nebulae...you can't question that, which is what you seem to be implying. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Apr 26, 2006

So, you're saying our direct observations of what is happening aren't to be trusted? i'm saying direct observations are based upon precepts about what is being directly observed. for example ---rain. it falls to earth. right? do you agree?

kmarinas86 · Apr 26, 2006

We can assign "labels" to certain signs, images, patterns, etc. However, our science ultimately progresses on new definitions (usually involving new labels) that describe or explain events by relating them to signs, images, patterns, etc. To know that these patterns exist, through discovering them, we unravel new mysteries, and these patterns too, may be explained by yet other signs, images, and patterns. The definitions per label are "paradigms" that we use to describe signs, images, and patterns. It's a bit like a game of Madlibs. The words we use have meaning to us, in the sense of signs, images, patterns, etc. And we fill in the blanks! Most of these signs, images, and patterns are retrieved from personal experience or generated from parts of other signs, images, and patterns. The rest are deduced from "rules" most of which are associated or associable with sensory experience. However the rest of these rules are purely "abstract" in that they ideas that are not presented in any real personal experience. This can happen when there are no precedently observed signs, images, or patterns from which an observation could be pieced together to represent this specific idea - in that it came without the experience of the condition for oneself, as if it was result of a few chemical reactions in the brain and nothing else.

Saiph · Apr 27, 2006

Even that is to much implied by the observer. What should be said about rain is that, from an observer on the surface of the earth, it accelerates towards the earth. When we look at stars, we see: The greatest intensity of light is observed to be yellow. Or looking at elemental spectrums: we observe each element has a unique spectra, and is confirmed over thousands of observations. We observe various behaviors of the spectral lines depending upon: pressure and temperature of the gas. We observe systematic shifts in the position of the spectra with variation in relative velocity between the observer and the source. All of these things are done in the labs, where they can be precisely controled. This can then be used to monitor the same spectral lines, but in objects we don't control directly to determine temperature, pressure, and velocity. Anyway, if your point is that you can learn something by analyzing the underlying assumptions and concepts behind observations, that's absolutely nothing new. One of the key points made in all graduate classes is that one must understand the limitations, and the underlying assumptions to any model or equation you use. A large number of advances in science are based upon such rethinking of underlying material. Specific example: The current spectral classification scheme, the OBAFGKM arrangement was created by a fundamental acknowledgement of an organizational/observational bias. Previous attempts to classify stars were based upon the strength of hydrogen lines. Stars whose hydrogen blocked the most light, got an "A" classification, the next got 'B' and so on. This arrangement had all sorts of problems, with other spectral lines popping up in various places, and disappearing in others with no real pattern. Enter in Cecilia Paine-Gaposchkin (spelling?) who takes a look at it and realizes we're organi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

why06 · Apr 27, 2006

very informative, now at least i understand what you meant by "systemmatic shifts in spectral lines"- man that was a mouthful. But who does the movement of these stars imply an exspansion of space-time. It crazy to jump from from saying: "Oh look at that! That galaxy is moving away! -to- "I know the reason! The fabric of the universe must be expanding!" We are just starting to understand movements of space-time. How this could be inferred even after years of research is beyond me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

Saiph · Apr 27, 2006

Well, that would be a crazy jump, if that's all there was. However what we see is: All galaxies outside the local group (~10 closest galaxies, of which we and andromeda are the largest) are receeding from us. This recession is uniform, so we don't see galaxies say, above the north pole receeding twice as fast as everyone else. The recession has a very strong, and linear dependence on distance. You go twice as far, it's receeding twice as fast. Theoretical work with GR shows that an expanding space-time is a valid solution to the GR equations, indeed either that or contraction are far more likely than a "static" space-time. Now, the first three fit what one would see if you were in the center of an expanding system. The last one says that such a system doesn't violate other theories, and it also says that the "center" is relative to the observer (i.e. it leads into the entire universe has no center thing in order to comply with GR). So it isn't just that, it's other things as well. Other things that fit the expansion: It implies a beginning, so things further away should show signs of being younger than closer things. This is seen. If there was a beginning, it must give rise to observed concentrations of light elements (those that are around before stellar fusion)...this is called nucleosynthesis. The BB expansion model provides sufficient initial conditions to produce observed concentrations of Hydrogen, Helium, and lithium, and observational evidence only verifies the theoretical work here. There should be an all pervasive isotropic, homogenous wash of radio noise, the last bit of light from when the electrons combined with protons to form neutral atoms. Now, this "recombination" is a prediction of the BB theory, and the presence of the CMBR (that radio noise) which fits specific parameters is a way to test it. No CMBR and the BB is wrong about this, and if its wr <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

why06 · Apr 27, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> This recession is uniform, so we don't see galaxies say, above the north pole receeding twice as fast as everyone else. <hr /></blockquote> If the expansion is uniform then it wold make no sense for scientist to think it is a lumpy exspansion. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> [The recession has a very strong, and linear dependence on distance. You go twice as far, it's receeding twice as fast. <hr /></blockquote> Would this not imply a relative center of space-time {notice: I did not say "the universe"} <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Theoretical work with GR shows that an expanding space-time is a valid solution to the GR equations, indeed either that or contraction are far more likely than a "static" space-time.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> I never said it was static I just wanted to know what reason it had to be expanding. And you did a very good job of explaining the reasons the scientific community supports this theory. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> So there's the reasoning, and evidence supporting the BB.<hr /></blockquote> Yes but there are also reasons why the universe the big bang should not exist as you said with this statement: "If there was a beginning, it must give rise to observed concentrations of light elements (those that are around before stellar fusion)...this is called nucleosynthesis. The BB expansion model provides sufficient initial conditions to produce observed concentrations of Hydrogen, Helium, and lithium, and observational evidence only verifies the theoretical work here. There should be an all pervasive isotropic, homogenous wash of ra</blockquote></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

Saiph · Apr 27, 2006

first, it looks like you forgot to close your UBB tags (a /yellow and a /quote tag). 1) Scientists don't generally believe in a lumpy expansion, at least not in the sense that one region is expanding faster than another. The entire universe may have changed the rate of expansion over time, but not small sections of it. 2) The BB does claim there is a "relative center" to the universe/space-time. It happens to be where you're taking the measurements. No matter where you take them, you'll see everything receeding from you, with the same distance to redshift ratio, and you'll appear to be in the oldest region. 3) I didn't think you said it was static. I was just pointing out that a contracting or expanding universe is more likely in GR than a static one...the only one that would rule out BB entirely. I.e. GR doesn't think it's all that suprising the universe is changing size. 4) The statement I provided about the CMBR and nucleosynthesis support the BB. If they are found to be false, or incompatible with BB or observations, then BB fails, as the CMBR is a direct prediction, and BB must lead to proper nucleosynthesis. BB can lead to this nucleosynthesis using parameters withing observational constraints. This means we don't need more energy, more heat, more pressure etc, than observation says we can have. The parameters required for the BB to correctly replicate observed metallicity concentrations are within the range of observation. We've also found a signal that matches CMBR prediction spot on, so a major (and required) prediction of BB is confirmed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

thepiper · Apr 27, 2006

We've also found a signal that matches CMBR prediction spot on, so a major (and required) prediction of BB is confirmed. I wouldn't go that far, since there were other closer predictions a long time before the Big Bang idea came about. In 1896, Charles Edouard Guillaume predicted a temperature of 5.6K from heating by starlight. Arthur Eddington refined the calculations in 1926 and predicted a temperature of 3K. Regener predicted 2.8K in 1933. In 1941, Andrew McKellar announced a temperature of 2.3K from radiative excitation of certain molecules. But World War II occupied everyone's attention and his paper was ignored. George Gamow, who is credited with the prediction from Big Bang assumptions, estimated 5K in 1948. In the 1950s he raised that estimate to 10K, and by 1961 he was predicting 50K! Meanwhile, in 1954, Finlay-Freundlich predicted 1.9K to 6K on the basis of "tired light" assumptions. Thus the discovery of the temperature of 3.5 +/- 1K by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 can hardly be claimed as as a successful prediction by the Big Bang theory, nor is it anywhere near proof of its occurrence.

Saiph · Apr 27, 2006

there's a bit more to it than just the temperature. It's essentially got an ideal blackbody curve, which some of those other ideas won't have (at least not as good as BB's predictions). It's also far more isotropic than other sources would suggest. Gamows initial, over large estimates can be understood to be a work in progress using material that is cutting edge at the time, nuclear physics. The material wasn't fully worked out then, and BB predictions of CMBR require a lot of nuclear physics work, and refinement in Gamow's figures were usually due to refinements in the nuclear physics (better measurements, etc). Anyway, BB did predict a blackbody, isotropic CMBR, and it's there. It is a major, and confirmed prediction of the BB. Now, there could be other sources, agreed, but this is still a feather in BB's hat (and a major one) even if it's got to share. And as I'm not incredibly familiar with the work specific to CMBR and BB theory, my guess is a lot of work has gone into verifying it's the BB version, and not one of those other ones (for instance, tired light doesn't pan out due to other reasons.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

dragon04 · Apr 28, 2006

It is theoretically impossible for light to lose energy because it has no mass, but who knows perhaps einstein was wrong. Okay. Help me out here. I am a semi educated layman. Mass in an atom can be lost to energy due to radioactive decay, (or other reasons) right? So what prevents (I know, this sounds utterly ignorant) light from losing energy to mass through an analagous process given the fact that matter and energy are essentially the same thing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 28, 2006

So what prevents (I know, this sounds utterly ignorant) light from losing energy to mass through an analagous process given the fact that matter and energy are essentially the same thing? Under normal conditions, conversion of radiation to matter is slower than conversion of matter into radiation, because when matter turns into radiation, it can leak into a huge volume of empty space. Only when you can collect all of the radiation that stars, planets, and galaxies emit, could you achieve equilbrium. If a huge mass to collect all this radiation did not radiate, then, if it was large enough, it could increase the ratio: radiation-to-matter conversion / matter-to-radiation conversion. The object would have to be unbelievably massive and have huge surface area to catch light particles like what fly paper does to flies.

why06 · Apr 28, 2006

1: Fine then if you know so much give me your reasoning then... how would all the matter in the universe connected together not have some sort of shape. That shape would have a center. 2: Maybe the only reason they seem to be moving faster is that time speeds up more the farther away from the center it is stretched. It makes perfect sense such as a river moves fastest at its widest point. Also a lot of what I said there was "crap". In my mind I visualized space-time like a gaseous vapor expand in to an infinite void. Why don't you explain how one could measure the rate of exspansion when space-time itself is exspaning without using an indirect approach. If everywhere else is exspaning why not us? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

The Big Bang- It time to settle this once and for all!!!

raghara2

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

why06

Guest

why06

Guest

why06

Guest

why06

Guest

why06

Guest

raghara2

Guest

why06

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Saiph

Guest

why06

Guest

Saiph

Guest

why06

Guest

Saiph

Guest

thepiper

Guest

Saiph

Guest

dragon04

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

why06

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page