The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.

Page 6 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
When we observe and measure distance from a curve surface, there is a limit to it and we call that limit the horizon.

But if you flatten that surface, the horizon retreats and disappears. It would appear as a straight line while retreating.

Can we detect a horizon out there? If we are in a hyper-sphere, we would have TWO horizons. Both horizons would appear as straight lines. With stars in between them.

But we don't see that. If space is expending, it's not curved.
Help me out here. The very shape - hypersphere - determines the Hubble Constant. That is an increase in radius expands space almost exactly as determined by observation of real astronomy. That is, just the mathematics of a hypersphere (no observation taken - just sums - the geometric property of a hypersphere). It's an obvious fact. An expanding hypersphere calculation gives our observed Hubble Constant.
Again, draw a hypersphere cross-section (an ordinary sphere). Represent it by a circle. For every bit added to the radius, the circumference expands by an amount equalling the Hubble Constant. The Hubble Constant is determined by geometry. Is this not significant? It would be nice if someone/we addressed this point. Mobius Strips and Klien Bottles have no such Hubble Constant producing Geometry; they just elicit the mystery of higher dimensions whereas a hypersphere is just about as simple as you can get. And obvious.
Tesseract cubes don't work. The curved space of an expanding hypersphere has one horizon. Spherical. Not only that but space looks flat but less so with distance which produces dilation (as observed from a specific place - again a possible fit to observations).
 
Helio, I just don't seem to be able to get across to you the concept that the backward extrapolation of the universe's apparent expansion does NOT have to go all the way back to some origin point in order to have an oscillation.
I've always assumed, for a cyclical model, that one must extrapolate closer to t=0 than physics currently can address, hence outside the BBT, which is constrained by physics. It's metaphysics that seeks an oscillation point or moment.

The concept I am trying to get you to understand is that the actual conditions might depart from that backward extrapolation and even reverse while the universe is still quite large. It all depends on what you do with the free parameters in the equations.
Ok. So if something weird like the universe is found to be contracting, then a cyclical model would make sense, perhaps? What test can we do to argue it will cycle even if this is true? Of course, if acceleration is confirmed, perhaps it is by now, then only a clear understanding of DE, and one that reveals it will diminish in time where gravity overcomes it to allow complete contraction, then perhaps the cyclical model will be more plausible. But a scientific theory requires more than supposition.
Perhaps you are saying that anything that does not go back to almost a single point in space is not "the BBT", and that therefore, any modification that reverses things before getting there is not "the BBT", but rather something else?
The BBT more likely started with something other than a singularity, but who knows. If science discovers something, as mentioned above with DE, and the cosmos will contract, then that would be incorporated in BBT, similar to Inflation theory. All known phenomena end up in some theory. If a new phenomena falsifies a theory, then a new theory will be required, but the new one will be required to address all the already known phenomena as well or better than BBT. This is not likely, but I hope it's true.

If it doesn't have a "bang", then it isn't the BBT? But, "BBT" is just slang for the "Lambda-Cold-Dark-Matter" theory, and all I am doing is showing you that another formulation for Lambda could produce an oscillating universe, rather than a bang from almost a single point in space.
Actually it was never a "bang". It became such thanks to an opponent to it, Fred Hoyle, who was using a pejorative (w/ sizzle :)) to diminish its worth, thus helping him argue his model (Steady State).

BBT is a theory of expansion (not an explosion) of spacetime and energy, which formed matter, which formed.....

I am NOT saying that the universe must have oscillated, or that I have a theory that shows that it oscillates. I am just saying that an LCDM theory does not necessarily require that there were not and could never be any oscillations of the universe. The universe we observe now could simply be in an expansion part of an oscillation with a very long period - conceptually and "mathematically" in so far as the parameters of the LCDM model are really "known" from observations.
Agreed. But I'm trying to note to all that this is supposition, failing to meet the requirements of a hypothesis or theory. There needs to be evidence of oscillation and a way to test any claim. That may seem unfair for something as important as a cyclical model, but it doesn't prevent one from introducing ideas for it, similar to the views for a multiverse, which has a tiny bit of evidence for it, according to one author --- the cold spot in the CMBR.


Calling it the "Big Bang Theory" seems to have blocked thinking about a lot of potential solutions.
A better name would be nice, but whatever label we give it, it must be scientific and one that explains all the many observations. BBT does this so far.
 
Gibsense, I'm not understanding what you want help in understanding.

You seem to understand that the "hypersphere" is a 4-dimensional version of a 3-D sphere, with the 4th dimension being experienced by us as "time". As time goes on, it is like increasing the radius of the 3-D sphere so all of the x,y,z coordinates seem to be increasing in scale size in unison, like stretching a 2-D spherical surface, except that it is 3 dimensions.

The "horizon" issue is that we see light from things that are on the same surface as us getting stretched before it gets to us along the the surface as it has been expanding. SO, it started at a smaller time radius, and as it traveled along the expanding surface it gets stretched before reaching us.

That concept gets somewhat difficult to use for all considerations. Such as: on a 2-D spherical surface imbedded in a 3-D space, the circumference is 2 pi times the radius, and you would end up going around in circles if you follow a circumference far enough. That tends to suggest that in a 3-D hypersphere space imbedded in a 4-D space/time, there should be x,y,z space folding back on itself, that is, "curvature". But, we don't seem to be able to detect any curvature to real space/time. Maybe the radius is just too large for our measuring instruments to see. For one thing, light emitted far enough away never gets to us because it is traveling more slowly than the distance between it and us is increasing faster than the speed of light. In that sense, it is analogous to being "over the horizon" in time. But, it really isn't a perfect analogy.
 
Helio, I think you do get the concept. My point is that we really do not know how DE behaves with time (or other variables). So, just assuming that it is a constant or a monotonically changing variable is not really any different than assuming it is an oscillating function - it is all assumption at this point in our understanding. Thus, the prediction that the universe will expand forever is really just an assumption, based on the assumptions chosen for the current version of the LCDM theory. You can get a different prediction by choosing a different assumption for DE behavior over time

Regarding the physics that would determine when an expansion/contraction reversal might occur, I do not see any reason why it would not be conceivable before the universe's radius was below the Planck value. We already believe that gravity can crunch matter into a ball of neutrons, and some believe into a ball of quarks, before it even gets to black hole conditions. At that point, what has happened with "entropy" of that matter?

When that matter is re-expanded, it automatically/naturally has the neutrons "decay" into protons and electrons (plus photons and neutrinos), and then chemistry can start all over again.

As an aside, I have a hard time with the concept of entropy not including the natural development of order in subatomic particles and atoms as they condense from what is postulated to have been pure energy. If everything really is just "waves" in "fields", why would those waves organize themselves into discrete quanta at all, and then build up such intricate organization as the chemistry and life we now experience? Seems extremely non-random to me.
 
Mass hums. It vibrates. This vibration can travel thru other media to other mass, and affect that mass to hum also. Sound is a hum. It hums thru the air, water and other matter.

Light does not hum. It squeaks. But it makes mass hum too. And men think the light was humming too.

A hum shift is different than a squeak shift. Space is not expanding. There are too ways to define this universe. One is with the mass we can see, and the other is to include everything....space included.

If you include all space then the universe is infinite. If you define it with the mass we can see, the mass is slowly expanding and diverging thru-out space. Indicating than once a gravitational system starts to diverge, it's a one way trip. All the galaxies are diverging. Thru-out a void space. An impediment free region. Dead zone.

But long exposure shows us there is much we can not see. Weak light.

Using accumulated detection, we probably won't be able to find a dark spot.

Accumulated astronomy. Want to see farther.....watch longer.

And there is this, if space was expanding like they say, the lateral expansion would be great enough and fast enough to detect it. The lateral V would be fantastic too. And another point.....it the expansion is accelerating, you would see a shift of the shift over time. Compare today's shifts with 50 yr old shifts. Do they change?

We don't know how to measure light. And we don't know how it shifts. And lot's of meaningless theories because of it.

I seriously doubt that helps clean up anything for you. Sorry. It's all I got.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
Helio, I just don't seem to be able to get across to you the concept that the backward extrapolation of the universe's apparent expansion does NOT have to go all the way back to some origin point in order to have an oscillation. The concept I am trying to get you to understand is that the actual conditions might depart from that backward extrapolation and even reverse while the universe is still quite large. It all depends on what you do with the free parameters in the equations.

Perhaps you are saying that anything that does not go back to almost a single point in space is not "the BBT", and that therefore, any modification that reverses things before getting there is not "the BBT", but rather something else? If it doesn't have a "bang", then it isn't the BBT? But, "BBT" is just slang for the "Lambda-Cold-Dark-Matter" theory, and all I am doing is showing you that another formulation for Lambda could produce an oscillating universe, rather than a bang from almost a single point in space.

If that is what you are saying, then please consider that it is the name, not the math or physics, that we are arguing about.

Gibsense, I'm not understanding what you want help in understanding.

You seem to understand that the "hypersphere" is a 4-dimensional version of a 3-D sphere, with the 4th dimension being experienced by us as "time". As time goes on, it is like increasing the radius of the 3-D sphere so all of the x,y,z coordinates seem to be increasing in scale size in unison, like stretching a 2-D spherical surface, except that it is 3 dimensions.

The "horizon" issue is that we see light from things that are on the same surface as us getting stretched before it gets to us along the the surface as it has been expanding. SO, it started at a smaller time radius, and as it traveled along the expanding surface it gets stretched before reaching us.

That concept gets somewhat difficult to use for all considerations. Such as: on a 2-D spherical surface imbedded in a 3-D space, the circumference is 2 pi times the radius, and you would end up going around in circles if you follow a circumference far enough. That tends to suggest that in a 3-D hypersphere space imbedded in a 4-D space/time, there should be x,y,z space folding back on itself, that is, "curvature". But, we don't seem to be able to detect any curvature to real space/time. Maybe the radius is just too large for our measuring instruments to see. For one thing, light emitted far enough away never gets to us because it is traveling more slowly than the distance between it and us is increasing faster than the speed of light. In that sense, it is analogous to being "over the horizon" in time. But, it really isn't a perfect analogy.
Apart from one error you achieved a successful description of a hypersphere. The error you made was to state: ""You seem to understand that the "hypersphere" is a 4-dimensional version of a 3-D sphere, with the 4th dimension being experienced by us as "time"".
This is not correct. Time is not the fourth dimension in the hyperspherical model I have suggested. My suggestion is subtly different to the standard Hypersphere model you trotted out.
I bring your attention to see that there is no specific direction or dimension attributed to time. As with 3D commonly experienced by us there is no spatial direction different to the others. Similarly in 4D spatial dimensions. However, the radius IS specific but exists in all 4 dimensions of the hypersphere.
And again you offer no comment on the Hubble Constant. It's easy sums.
 
Hello unclear engineer.
You said
"Here is an article that is a bit different about space expanding. It says the expansion is not uniform in space. See https://phys.org/news/2024-06-behavior-black-holes-universe.html ."

The article describes a Classical Black Hole with a singularity.
A classical BH cannot exist.
The paper has no idea what a Black Hole is.
A condensate can reach the critical mass of the core Mimicking (MBH) the forces to create an Event Horizon.
The condensate has a property, Dipolar Magnetic Vector Fields that expel matter away from the core preventing a Singularity.
 
Sorry, Gibsense - you said "help me out" and that is what I was trying to do with the description of the hypersphere as most of us think about it. With over 130 posts to this thread, I seem to have lost your description of what you think the hypersphere "really" is. Apparently, it is different, and apparently, you really don't want/need help in understanding how you think about it. Unless you have a concise description of your version, I have no way to proceed with a discussion of your concept.
 
If there were a galaxy out there on the edge where the space is expanding, as it is accelerated out, it would also expand at that acceleration rate. The expansion of a small galaxy into a large spread out galaxy.

And with ANY spreading.....g goes down. The spread should accelerate.

This expansion rate is so fast you should be able to watch it expand thru the months. Actually weeks.

But we don't see any of this. All we see is a straight line constant shift. Not a changing shift. Not an expanding shift.

Another red flag for space expansion.

Start over and measure light. Nothing will be resolved until we confirm what light is. Math is not enough.
 
Classical Motion, there is more to the dynamics of spreading space than "g going down" as expansion occurs.

Think of a rocket launch from Earth, where the space vehicle is travelling away and going into a region of less attraction to the Earth. It can still fall back to Earth if its rocket motor turns off before it has reached "escape velocity". Escape velocity is the speed needed to keep coasting away from the Earth forever, even though it will be slowing down due to the force of gravity, which is diminishing with distance.

So, the issue in space expansion is what force, analogous to the rocket motor, is driving the expansion. Because it is space expanding (and carrying matter with it), not motion through space like a rocket ship, it is hard to say what amount of momentum is involved in the observed motion, compared to continuing driving force. But, in any analysis, we just don't understand the driving force, anyway. We call it "dark energy", but we don't really understand how it works. So, we don't really understand how it worked in the past nor how it will work in the future. There are a lot of people making assumptions about how dark matter works, and they tend to publish their predictions as if they are facts, which is misleading others into thinking that we do know more than we really know.
 
So space only expands in one direction? That fits real good with everything else. A very unique expansion.

And galaxies stay together when caught within it? Another convenient fit.

And at those proposed accelerations, some still think it might not be escape V? Yeah boy.

Your expanding space gets more unique every day. A convenient property for the heavy thinkers. Or heavy drinkers.

My point is that space is not expanding. We do NOT understand the shift.

We are trying to explain an illusion. And apparently nothing is out of bounds to explain it.

Space time and space expansion. It has NEVER answered anything.......it has only sired more puzzles. More quagmires.

We now have a longer list of quagmires. And until we find out what light is, that list will grow. Now add DE and DM to that list. Leave room for more on that list.

We will NEVER understand what we see until we precisely measure the messenger of it. And the way the messenger changes with moving addresses.

I believe that the message never changes if you know where the true message is.......inside the messenger.

If that makes any sense. In other words the original message is still there no matter how distorted the messenger becomes.

The motion of light is not only the fastest dynamic we know, it is the most precise motion there is. It's a shame we can't use it. It would improve our sight enormously.

But we need much faster switches to use it for measuring all of our quagmires.

IF and WHEN science discovers what light is, there is going to be a lot of red faces.

Unclear Engineer, I have read you posts and know you are not a nut. I admire honest sense. And I appreciate your views and comments. I am just more restricted on what's allowable for consideration. Locked by omnipresent time and length with a square space.

My world view has blinded and binned me. And there is only one solution. Digital light.
 
Jan 2, 2024
319
44
210
Visit site
Sorry, Gibsense - you said "help me out" and that is what I was trying to do with the description of the hypersphere as most of us think about it. With over 130 posts to this thread, I seem to have lost your description of what you think the hypersphere "really" is. Apparently, it is different, and apparently, you really don't want/need help in understanding how you think about it. Unless you have a concise description of your version, I have no way to proceed with a discussion of your concept.
I apologise. The "help me out" was in frustration that no one was prepared to comment on the fact that the Hubble Constant is predictable via simple geometry.
This is very relevant and, whilst not proof, it is a big hint that the universe is a hypersphere.

Also, the point you made about "flat" (unless the universe is very large), I need help - I have an explanation I can offer that needs debating as it seems to fit the curve of the candles used for Hubble Constant estimation.

As for what I think a hypersphere is - I am confident that the facts I make use of are consistent with the mathematics and form of a Hypersphere. I have been interested in this stuff since I stopped needing nappies but I am no expert.
 
Classical Motion, the LCDM theory (BBT) is that space is expanding uniformly in the x, y and z directions. (Or, if you prefer polar coordinates, radius, and the two angles, but that polar coordinate radius is not the 4-D hypersphere radius.)

The link https://phys.org/news/2024-06-behavior-black-holes-universe.html that I posted in reply # 132 takes exception to the uniformity (all space expanding at the same rate, everywhere, in all direction). It postulates that space expands at a zero rate at the event horizon of black holes, and varies with distance from the event horizons. Because black holes have (roughly) spherical event horizons, that involves all directions. And, because the event horizons are sprinkled around the universe in a non-uniform way, it means that the expansion of space is variable from place to place outside of the black holes that we see. The authors claim that this is a solution to General Relativity Theory (which I cannot personally verify) and that it explains some of the currently unexplained observations in galaxies and the overall observable universe.

I posted it because it seems relevant to challenging some of the assumptions used in the BBT. But, I cannot vouch for its accuracy at a mathematical level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Classical Motion
Helio, I think you do get the concept. My point is that we really do not know how DE behaves with time (or other variables). So, just assuming that it is a constant or a monotonically changing variable is not really any different than assuming it is an oscillating function - it is all assumption at this point in our understanding.
But do you see that one is spawned from a given phenomenon, and the other is not? The other being spawned in the realm of cool ideas, but w/o any supporting evidence. Or am I missing something?

There are over two dozen scientific theories for DE, and they each have names for them. How many cyclical models are there that allow observational tests to allow falsification?

IMO, we're going to see more and more metaphysics, pseudoscience, hand-waving, etc. so it's important to get our focus on what is or isn't objective-based (ie science).

Thus, the prediction that the universe will expand forever is really just an assumption, based on the assumptions chosen for the current version of the LCDM theory. You can get a different prediction by choosing a different assumption for DE behavior over time
Yes, but acceleration is observable and testable. Undoubtedly, more research will tweak the current acceleration rate. More observations of the Lyman-Alpha Forest will tweak the rates for earlier periods. All this will naturally tweak the BBT since it is based on GR, which is based on mass-energy.

Look at the history of the tweaking process for determining G, gravitational constant. The first "quality" result came when they found a nice somewhat symmetric mountain and the side force was observed. But measurements improved the constant, which improved Newton's theory. Let's not forget, also, that no one claimed they knew what gravity was only how it behaves. Einstein seems to be the one who discovered "gravity".


Regarding the physics that would determine when an expansion/contraction reversal might occur, I do not see any reason why it would not be conceivable before the universe's radius was below the Planck value.
Agreed, but reason alone is not science. As she said, "Where's the beef?". FWIW, pushing past reason is something else, as well. "The heart has its reasons that reason cannot know." Blaise Pascal.

We already believe that gravity can crunch matter into a ball of neutrons, and some believe into a ball of quarks, before it even gets to black hole conditions.
I know this sounds picky, but it doesn't hurt to mention that some people will conflate "belief" with objective evidence for it. Usually belief involves hope or faith, which is anathema to hard evidence found for a given scientific claim. I've heard some say we exercise faith whenever we sit in a chair, but I disagree since a simple FBD and a materials' handbook will negate the need for hope or faith in this circumstance.
As an aside, I have a hard time with the concept of entropy not including the natural development of order in subatomic particles and atoms as they condense from what is postulated to have been pure energy. If everything really is just "waves" in "fields", why would those waves organize themselves into discrete quanta at all, and then build up such intricate organization as the chemistry and life we now experience? Seems extremely non-random to me.
Yes. You would enjoy reading about the early debates between Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Einstein, etc. that happened during the same time period as Lemaitre's BB introductions.

Schrodinger was respected with his wave model. But there was that pesky bubble chamber path carved-out by electrons. IOW, particle-like, not wave-like. So, out came "wave packets", or some other ad hoc attempt. Heisenberg stepped in over this very issue, and finally presented his Uncertainty Principle to help solve the problem.
 
Helio,

You seem to think that seeing expansion now and extrapolating all the way back to a single point (or almost a single point) is somehow better "science" (even though it involves postulating "inflation" as a way of overcoming Relativity Theory ramifications of that postulate), compared to thinking that the expansion many not be extrapolatable all the way back to a point (or almost a point) because Relativity theory alone would then not let it expand to what we observe today. I just don't agree that it is "better science" to postulate an unexplained force than to look for a way to stay within GRT.

I do think that GRT is probably somewhat incomplete, but I don't agree that there is "testable" evidence of inflation. That is different from space "expansion" and "acceleration" as we currently measure with astronomy observations. Even the CMBR is so far removed from the postulated inflation that it does not really support it other than it seems to have come from a phase change of the matter in space. But, even that might not be the correct interpretation.

I get annoyed with people continuing to claim that the BBT is "science" and that other considerations and concepts are not "science". As a person who has considerable experience reviewing models of physical phenomena, I see a lot of red flags in the BBT. Hence, I object to people overstating the level of confidence that the BBT warrants in predicting the future or explaining the past. And, that type of objection, based on logic and fact IS SCIENCE.
 
Helio,

You seem to think that seeing expansion now and extrapolating all the way back to a single point (or almost a single point) is somehow better "science" (even though it involves postulating "inflation" as a way of overcoming Relativity Theory ramifications of that postulate), compared to thinking that the expansion many not be extrapolatable all the way back to a point (or almost a point) because Relativity theory alone would then not let it expand to what we observe today.
I don't understand why this isn't obvious to all, since one view is science, and the other view is metaphysics. And it's not just GR that "struggles" with events prior to Inflation, or worse, the time prior to the first Planck unit of time, it's more a problem for both quantum mechanics and GR. But, on the other hand, they don't really struggle since neither go there, at least until they find a way to get there. You're asking snorkel divers to dive a thousand feet deep; they can't, and in this analogy, knowing what lies 1000 feet deep can only be found by the only means of getting there -- snorkeling. There is no means known to get us to, say, 1E-35 sec. Math is all we have for now, but Inflation theory does allow tests for it, but more in principle than our current technology will allow, AFAIK.

The inability to explain the origin of the universe, or even the initial conditions within the time duration of the first Planck unit of time, is not a failure of BBT, or any theory that might replace it. Newton, once again, had no idea what gravity might be, but look at the utility of his equations. Thankfully, his laws were not rejected because they seemed too incomplete in explaining gravity.

I do think that GRT is probably somewhat incomplete, but I don't agree that there is "testable" evidence of inflation.
Right, I too have been saying this. Inflation theory is just one theory for what may have happened. It is carried forward in publications only because it is a surprisingly brilliant approach to explain the degree of isotropy, for instance. No doubt, many scientists will see it as ad hoc for the very reason you state; it lacks testability, so far. But, this is no cause to diminish the tenets of BBT, which explains so much of the universe after t=1E-12 sec, as confirmed by CERN.

That is different from space "expansion" and "acceleration" as we currently measure with astronomy observations. Even the CMBR is so far removed from the postulated inflation that it does not really support it other than it seems to have come from a phase change of the matter in space. But, even that might not be the correct interpretation.
Yet, most scientists, IMO, recognize the importance to Inflation Theory -- there are many versions, BTW -- as a fair possibility for what happened. They aren't going to toss their baby (BBT) with the bath water (no understanding of the initial conditions on or before the first Plance unit of time.).

I get annoyed with people continuing to claim that the BBT is "science" and that other considerations and concepts are not "science".
What part of BBT do you consider isn't science? It's improper to force any scientific theory to be contorted and stretched into regions where no science is capable of going. If a model does a fantastic job of explaining phenomena, then why wouldn't science support it, especially when no falsifications have come its way.

I only see reluctance for a scientific theory when there are strong ideological (philosophy or religion) issues with a scientific theory that appears to conflict with these subjective opinions, though history shows it's the interpretations that are often the stumbling block.
As a person who has considerable experience reviewing models of physical phenomena, I see a lot of red flags in the BBT.
So, of which of the BBT lines of evidence found in the Big Bang Bullets do you see a red flag? When Einstein was given a paper of 100 prominent German and Austrian signers stating his General Relativity theory was wrong, Einstein simply said, "Why one hundred when only one is needed?"

If you can show objective evidence of merit that falsifies BBT's many claims, you will not be condemned but highly rewarded. That's the beauty of science. Unlike philosophy and religion, it encourages, even demands, scrutiny.

But, science, with its requirement for objectivity, is also limited by its own boundaries, thus the need for religion and philosophy is very important, too. Some scientists feel science should have more sway into these subjective realms, this is called "scientisim". This is an abuse of science, IMO. Yet, we've seen it happen in the last few year, and for the purpose of pushing society in ways they decided it needed to go, though objective evidence was suppressed, along with those who objected.
Hence, I object to people overstating the level of confidence that the BBT warrants in predicting the future or explaining the past. And, that type of objection, based on logic and fact IS SCIENCE.
Your opinion of what is overstated and what is not is opinion, not science. You need to produce objective evidence to support or diminish any given model.
 
Last edited:
Helio, I am just going to stop trying to make the point that you keep ignoring. You insist on extrapolation of the observed expansion backward to something like 10^-12 second and a very tiny size. My point is that there are lots of reasons to suspect that it was never that small, particularly that it then requires something being called "inflation" to get large enough to expand into what we see today, because GRT would alone would not do that.

The point you keep ignoring is that it doesn't take any more imagination to have the backward extrapolation of the expansion stop at a much larger universe, for some currently unknown reason, compared to the imagination that is required to invoke some unknown force called "inflation". Choosing inflation and calling every other possibility "non-science" is NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD - it is political rhetoric.

And CERN had definitely not proven anything about what happened in the universe in the past. All CERN has done is produce the same effects on subatomic particles as would be experienced at extremely high pressures and temperatures. That doesn't "prove" "inflation" at all. It has only allowed quantum theorists to cobble together a partial theory about what MIGHT have happened if the universe ever was so tiny. And, it might apply to whatever is happening inside the event horizons of black holes. But, that theory has some major holes, such as where is the antimatter. And, even if it is possible, physically, it is still just a theory (or maybe just a hypothesis) that it is what really happened. It is not "unscientific" to question the theory. it is actually a scientific RESPONSIBILITY.

So, having said that again, I am done with this thread.

We will just wait for the next observation that conflicts with the BBT predictions. Actually, there is one.
 
Helio, I am just going to stop trying to make the point that you keep ignoring. You insist on extrapolation of the observed expansion backward to something like 10^-12 second and a very tiny size.
Yes, because this is the time that correlates to all the objective evidence found from the results from CERN, at least according to one author. It's all over my head, admittedly.

My point is that there are lots of reasons to suspect that it was never that small,...
Ok, what are your "lots of reasons"?

The 1E-12s, admittedly, must be an extrapolation from the evidence found in the CMBR. There is no direct observations of the temperatures and pressures at 1E-12s, but indirect evidence favors this model. If further evidence supports a different time for those events that are observed at CERN, then it won't hurt BBT, right?

...particularly that it then requires something being called "inflation" to get large enough to expand into what we see today, because GRT would alone would not do that.
No. Inflation, as I have read about, only lasted for a trillionth of trillionth of a trillionth of a second. One author said this much, much, faster than light expansion rate brought the universe to the size of about a grapefruit. BBT modeling begins shortly after this since objective evidence currently does not exist...yet.


The point you keep ignoring is that it doesn't take any more imagination to have the backward extrapolation of the expansion stop at a much larger universe, for some currently unknown reason, compared to the imagination that is required to invoke some unknown force called "inflation". Choosing inflation and calling every other possibility "non-science" is NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD - it is political rhetoric.
Nope. CERN results are not imagination. The CMBR was a prediction of BBT, where the expansion would cool to a point for Recombination to take place. Thus, there really is no argument or any real imagination to assume the universe was smaller since this was a prerequisite for the CMBR.

Thus the question becomes how far can science (ie BBT) make arguments that are physics and not metaphysics? This happens, as I've said many times, before we reach (going from today to then) the moment of Inflation, so please, go back and read what I've said about Inflation. Your claim that I endorse is absurd. Whether or not some scientists which to claim it is now part of BBT or not, I don't care unless I can be shown there is something better than a very plausible model for it. But, as I mentioned, there are many versions, obviously because tests are outside our current technology.

It seems to me that you won't accept BBT as a valid theory until it can explain the origin itself of the universe. Is that your view? If so, we can now disagree and move on.

And CERN had definitely not proven anything about what happened in the universe in the past.
There you go again, demanding "proofs" of science. You still don't understand that scientific theories never present truths or proofs. A theory, however, can be proven wrong, which is just another way of saying it's falsified. Sometimes models can be tweaked to get it out of a bar ditch, but sometimes it must be tossed-out completely, as the Chruch (Jesuits) did when Galileo proved (falsified) the Aristotle/Ptolemy/Thomist model with his discovery of the multiple phases of Venus (and later Mercury).

The evidence found from CERN has helped many scientific models, especially in the world of quantum physics, falsifying the ones that made predictions that were subsequently proven incorrect, and advancing those where the evidence was found that supported a model.

All CERN has done is produce the same effects on subatomic particles as would be experienced at extremely high pressures and temperatures. That doesn't "prove" "inflation" at all.
Why are you forcing conditions on CERN that can't be tested? CERN is far from being able to test the phase events that may, or may not, have occurred "long" before t=1E-12s. Perhaps you have a different Inflation model in mind than the this, more original (Gamow), common one?

It has only allowed quantum theorists to cobble together a partial theory about what MIGHT have happened if the universe ever was so tiny. And, it might apply to whatever is happening inside the event horizons of black holes.
Yesh! BBT is all about the universe being smaller in the past, large in the future (i.e. expansion). When the Universe was smaller, of course, it was necessarily hotter, per the theory. Physics is able to present a lot of information of what that would look like in the past as things were hotter and hotter. But, it has limits. Those limits, if we go beyond them, take us into metaphysics, or pseudoscience. BBT is not a metaphysics theory in spite of your incalcitrant efforts to make it so.

But, that theory has some major holes, such as where is the antimatter.
Sorry, more metaphysics. The matter-antimatter proposed event is prior to 1E-12sec, right?

And, even if it is possible, physically, it is still just a theory (or maybe just a hypothesis) that it is what really happened.
Right. But you are looking for truth, which no theory is capable of revealing, IMO. A theory, as stated before, can't even be proven. The most accepted theory is the one that best explains phenomena. BBT does that well, unless it gets kicked into areas it can say nothing, such as a singularity moment.

It is not "unscientific" to question the theory. it is actually a scientific RESPONSIBILITY.
Right, you are quoting me.
 
Last edited:
So, now you are claiming that "inflation" is not part of the BBT?!

It is essential to the BBT - it is actually the "bang" part of the BBT!

No. Inflation, as I have read about, only lasted for a trillionth of trillionth of a trillionth of a second. One author said this much, much, faster than light expansion rate brought the universe to the size of about a grapefruit. BBT modeling begins shortly after this since objective evidence currently does not exist...yet.
As I said, I am done here. There is no objectivity in the responses, just rhetoric. Others can make their own decisions after reading what we have both already posted.
 
So, now you are claiming that "inflation" is not part of the BBT?!

It is essential to the BBT - it is actually the "bang" part of the BBT!
Just read what I said. Many scientists include it due to its elegance in explaining how the isotropy would be so smooth, and the horizon so flat. I argued that they call Inflation theory a theory. It should be seen separate from other, less suppositional, elements (e.g. CMBR) because of its lack of current objective evidence. Inflation theory elegance, though compelling, is incomplete without objective evidence, directly or indirectly, or even in principle.

BBT has an initial set of conditions. You know this from all those "Given-Required-Solution" engineering problems. Initial conditions are a must for physics' theories, as well. So, what are the initial conditions within the framework of BBT . IMO, it should only be taken seriously after t=1E12s, where strong evidence is found from CERN. The BBT doesn't seem to wobble one iota.

As I've stated earlier, perhaps a TOE (Theory of Everything) can be found to answer the important questions and doubt you raise, but a TOE isn't the same as the more limited BBT.
 
Helio, you seem to have a person version of the BBT, or whatever you want to call it.

I still am not seeing an indisputable theory from the time the observable universe is extrapolated back in time to the size of a grapefruit.

It still needs to expand when GRT says it should contract. If you aren't calling it "inflation", then you are calling it "dark energy".

One way or the other, you have a theory that relies on 20 times more mass and energy than we have any explanations for.

Worse, the BBT (maybe not your version) does not know why there is not as much antimatter as there is matter, so, assuming the same amount of known energy types associated with antimatter, there is another 5% of the BBT that is missing in observations.

It is annoying that you call me "unscientific" when I question a theory that has so many holes it. If you simply can't conceive of anything other than your version of the theory, then you are the one who is not being "scientific". All I have done is try to point out what are assumptions, vs observations. That is essential to critical thinking. - and the best hope for real progress.
 
I still am not seeing an indisputable theory from the time the observable universe is extrapolated back in time to the size of a grapefruit.
I am surprised given our mutual respect for one another, we haven't seem to be able to nail-down exactly where we disagree. My thought is that you want to hold BBT's feet to the fire at the events that took place prior to where physics can no longer address. Is this right? Where do we differ exactly?

Let me try to be a little more clear on my view.

The approximate grapefruit size was at the end of Inflation, as one Inflation theory estimates. The end of Inflation is estimated to be about t = 1E-35 sec., IIRC, and this hyper inflation period only lasted about 1E-35 sec. Perhaps this is where the confusion lies.

Regardless, the proposed Inflation was many nanoseconds before what I claim is the proper beginning of BBT (~ 1E-12sec). It's unlikely from what I've read that any scientist can make any objective claim that is testable , with today's technology, for any event that happened before t=1E-12 sec. CERN can't do it, so who can? Perhaps there is a way, but I'm not aware of any.

We can easily be confused by all the stuff we see that is claimed to have happened prior to this point in time, but such claims are at best conjectures. Some claims may even be elegant. As I have said, a TOE might be able to address this in a proper way, but BBT simply can't. So, it is unfair, IMO, to force a valid scientific theory (ie BBT) into the realm of metaphysics. Those speculations, nevertheless, are an important part of the scientific process since ideas are necessary to form subsequent hypotheses. But I argue, as you know, that BBT must not be required to answer questions beyond its bounds as established by physics. These equations, as some physicists have described, have "their wheels go flying off the cart" when nearing the Inflation period, IIRC, but they seem to be fine at the t=1E-12sec.

It still needs to expand when GRT says it should contract. If you aren't calling it "inflation", then you are calling it "dark energy".
Where does GR say the universe should contract? That went out the window in 1927, blessed by Einstein in 1931. [Suppositionally, they both thought the cyclical model was a real possibility, but they knew there was nothing to base that on other than some reasoning and guessing.]

One way or the other, you have a theory that relies on 20 times more mass and energy than we have any explanations for.
Agreed. But mass and energy have equivalence. These values become incorporated into BBT. The result tweaks BBT but doesn't scar it. It was certainly a surprise to discover the likely acceleration, thus forcing the view of DE as the label used for it, but there are no paradoxes in Nature, so it's up to scientists to advance their science to explain why this is so.

Keep in mind that acceleration wasn't that big a surprise for some. Lemaitre showed that the universe had more of a geometric expansion rate during the earlier periods, and more linear today. This was something he saw, apparently, in Einstein's GR. He had weak data to make specific claims as to these rates, but he was the first to ever estimate the more linear rate of expansion today. [Hubble soon followed with his rate of about 500 kps/Mpc, unaware of Lemaitre's estimate. But the science was inaccurate. Hubble, from what I could determine, was using Shapley's luminosity-period for variables that were thought to be Cepheids, but they were the RR Lyrae variables, much dimmer than Cepheids. Walter Baade discovered Cepheids vary considerably from Pop I and Pop II variable.]

Worse, the BBT (maybe not your version) does not know why there is not as much antimatter as there is matter, so, assuming the same amount of known energy types associated with antimatter, there is another 5% of the BBT that is missing in observations.
This question belongs to those who are working on TOE. Such energy levels, AFAIK, are well outside the limits of CERN, so why would BBT be capable of explaining how that may, or may not, have happened. It hardly changes what we do know about BBT, right? Shall I list those bullets? BBT explains the observed phenomena. You seem convinced it must explain unobserved phenomena.

It is annoying that you call me "unscientific" when I question a theory that has so many holes it.
I know you're scientific, but you are mistaken when you imply that BBT is not robust because it doesn't answer the metaphysical questions that have arisen and also can't be tested within the realm of today's science. How is that fair for any theory?

If you simply can't conceive of anything other than your version of the theory, then you are the one who is not being "scientific". All I have done is try to point out what are assumptions, vs observations.
That's not what I've seen in your posts. Those "assumptions", as I try to note aren't observable. This may make it weaker in your view, but you mustn't ignore all the phenomena that it addresses robustly, and after thousands of tests, it is more robust than ever. It also helps allow the many suppositions, like antimatter-matter events. Though science does know something about matter and antimatter, the event you are mentioning is still outside the known laws of physics, at least for now.
 
Last edited:
Helio, There are several different aspects to this discussion, and you keep hopping back and forth so that my points get ignored and different arguments get substituted.

As I said, I am not going to keep repeating my points in the hope for a different result.

To sum up the results, you are saying that your version o f the BBT only takes the back-extrapolation of the universe's expansion to the size of a grapefruit and 10^-12 seconds after the "point" in time that you say is somehow not part of the theory. I guess that is some progress, compared to the frequent popular media articles that tend to take it back to 10^-43 seconds and smaller than a proton, quitting only at the Planck size, or even going below that to a "quantum fluctuation".

But, you are still missing my point that even to get to the size of a grapefruit, you need a "dark energy" that we do not understand, and have simply ASSUMED it does what is needed to do to get the expansion that the theory envisions. My point is that there could be other assumptions about how "dark energy" behaves, and they could result in substantially different histories of the universe. Oscillatory behavior cannot be ruled out on the basis of current knowledge. But, it seems to be excluded from the information silo associated with the BBT.

And, since you do not believe in "inflation" being part of the BBT, I think it is misleading for you to call what you do believe "the BBT". Your version seems to have excluded the "bang". I suggest that you call it the "Lambda Cold Dark Matter Theory after 10^-12 seconds". That still seems to invoke the timing of a "bang" at t=0 seconds, but at least it would avoid a lot of confusion with the articles that we keep seeing about the BBT in Space.com and elsewhere.
 

Latest posts