What I don't understand about the Big Bang Theory

[qso1]

The big bang is a theory, not proven fact although right now, the BB is the theory with the best evidence to support it. All suggestions as to how the Universe came to be are theories unless or until they can be proven and I doubt they will ever be proven. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Ditto for evolution. Now if you invent time travel with the ability to go to the past... (We already travel to the future every day. I see nothing special about that.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[lukman]

Exactly <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Just a side note:<br /><br />There is a very, very excellent article in the October issue of "Astronomy" concerning the Big Bang theory and the formation of elements.<br /><br />It's just plain outstanding. I recommend it.<br /><br /><two thumbs up /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[R1]

I think the speed of the passage of time also varies according to the amount of matter present,<br />so when we look at areas where matter didn't even form yet, <br /><br />I think that we are no longer looking at things 'a little bit' Earlier than the areas 'a little bit' Closer<br />to us where matter now existed (as in a linear type of thinking in terms of rate of time passage vs.<br />non-linear such as an exponential type or something else), but instead we could very well be seeing close to infinitely sometime in the past, <br /><br /><br />for example, here at home close to the planets gravity my clock ticks at about one second per second, but<br />in the area we look at where matter was starting to form the clock ticks at a speed of about a thousand<br />trillion seconds per second<br /><br />(this is a difficult model to explain, and surely I don't know the time equation, but hopefully I illustrated<br />the situation as best as possible)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

I would like to discuss real physics and cosmology on occasion instead of science fiction such as inflation. There is no evidence of this sort of phenomena in nature whatsoever and simply cannot be tested whatsoever. This is not ‘hard’ science. The idea is nothing but a math equation written on a piece of paper that could be used for better purposes. If you somehow can find a way of testing inflation in some lab you would convince me this is not fiction.<br /><br />The many failures of big bang to predict accurately are only the tips of the icebergs for its demise. It will sink like the titanic eventually. There indeed are other perfectly good alternate theories that have a basis in real physics already tested in labs. They just happen to not be in the institution of cosmology that seems to think it knows all things. The builders of the titanic had similar thoughts.<br /><br />

 

[alokmohan]

Thats the model of expanding universe.I canot help.

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Wouldn't it slow down, not expand faster and faster?</font><br /><br />Newton's First Law, gravitational interactions notwithstanding, explains why it might not slow down.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">What powers that expansion at such great distances from its potential energy source?</font><br /><br />Or conversely, what "outside" force might be attempting to pull the Universe apart?<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Actually you are right about one thing. The flaw is in the basic ideas, or premise, of inflation, not necessarily the math that can be used to support it. But notions such as are being discussed almost always have a not mentioned underlay of math and not the mystery of the phenomena itself. It is as if cosmology has the answer to some very great mysteries if they have someone that has put some math logic to work that may in fact be only a peep hole on guessed at reality. But what if those notions of reality just are not valid? There is clever math sometimes to support such a notion, but such an effort is eventually bound to fail if the view of reality is incorrect or at least somewhat wrong, which it very likely is. <br /><br />There is a need for inflation or expansion notions due to the theory that red shift is Doppler caused. Expansion is not needed if the red shift has other causes. And I also think entropy cannot help us understand a system that is not closed.<br /><br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

Of course, it's just as bad (or worse) when someone makes up new physics because they think it's a cool idea, without any support for the idea other than it's cool idea and I thought of it.<br /><br />No math, no currently verifiable physics (with math and data) etc.<br /><br />At least the standrad model has much physical evidence and mathamatical support. Is it 100% correct? I doubt it.<br /><br />But until something really better (not I think it's better) comes along, it is the starting point to work from. And you need to prove a departure from that view. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

How much math Darwin's theory had? Very little or none. One can arrive at the correct theory without math but through scientific logic and observations.<br /><br />Btw, I have nothing against math, I myself have used and still use math almost everyday, but math lacks human factor which is very important when we deal with mysterious cosmos. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Darwins teory was based on observation and explanation of these observations.It was not given mathematicl expression as it was not required.But to check up big bang you have no scope to observe.Maths is the only way .

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">If so..still space must be glued together in some sense.<br />If not, only space as a total volume would expand, not the distances between clusters as we observe today.</font><br /><br />Take a rubber band in your fingers and stretch it.<br /><br />Watch it. Your fingers pull it apart at a specific rate, but watch the rubber band. It stretches more "quickly" towards the edged than it does in the middle.<br /><br />This leads me to believe that space-time is "elastic". In my model, were I to "push" the rubber band apart from the middle, it would "bunch up" until the middle's elasticity was used up.<br /><br />That would not lend itself to an accelerating, expanding model of the Universe.<br /><br />In that way, the Universe being pulled apart by its edges seems more likely.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

About a decade back ,there was much talks of distant supernova.It was believed that it can explain accelerating universe.Later on the enthu ended.

 

[holmec]

Big Bang and evolution are apples and oranges. They really have little to do with each other. <br /><br />ie If one is proven wrong that does not affect the other. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Well, there is a lot we still don't know about the Big Bang.<br /><br />If M theory is correct and the theory that many attraction forces (gravity...etc) were all one super force, we could only be able to look visibly at the a certain stage after the BB because it wouldn't be visible in our.....dimension....or universe....<br /><br />So my question would be is when did our universe become visible like it is today? I would think it was some time after the BB. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[R1]

the rubberlike characteristic of spacetime does seem to agree with the observed expansion<br />over large spaces between large gravitational spots<br /><br />maybe its the large gravitational spots, including and especially galactic centers, that are strectching<br />spacetime,<br /><br />it may not be observed, however, until it is observed in the vast empty spaces<br /><br />not only that, but any stretching that would occur close to the gravitation spots would be<br />in a slower fashion, due to the slowing of clocks (time) near the gravitation fields to begin with.<br /><br /> edit: in other words, it very well may be that yes, spacetime is expanding,<br /> and yes it seems to occur in the vast empty spaces probably because it's the vast non-empty<br />spaces that are doing the stretching and whatever stretching is occuring near the vast non-empty spaces<br />happens in slow motion compared to the areas in the vast empty spaces due again to the non-empty spaces having gravity which affects time clocks in these non-empty regions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[adrenalynn]

<font color="yellow">How much math Darwin's theory had? Very little or none. One can arrive at the correct theory without math but through scientific logic and observations.</font><br /><br />Evolution wouldn't make it very far without statistics... "Observation" would pretty much be impossible without a properly formed and tested statistical model, wouldn't it?<br /><br />How do you establish a baseline to measure from without a baseline itself? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

"<i>So my question would be is when did our universe become visible like it is today? I would think it was some time after the BB.</i>"<br /><br />About 400,000 years after. The Universe was essentially opaque prior to that as it was so dense, photons weren't capable of escaping. The photons were constantly absorbed similar to what our sun does. The light you see from the sun can take up to a million years being absorbed and re-emitted before the photons escape the density and travel freely through space and reach your eyes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<i><font color="yellow">"But what makes space-time "rubberlike"?"</font>/i><br /><br />Metric expansion - the simple observation that when a <i>(relatively)</i> small distance changes by a certain factor, a much larger distance will change by the <i>same</i> factor. The factor has changed over time - it started very fast and has been slowing down until relatively recently.<br /><br />Metric expansion - For a ruler of 100 mm in length, if every millimetre of the ruler doubles in size to become 2 mm, then it ends up being 200 mm in length. Put yourself in the centre of the 100mm ruler, at the 50 mm mark. The nearest mark is 1 mm away, the next 2mm away and the furthest is 50 mm away. It now expands metrically. Now the closest mark is 2 mm away, the next is 4 mm, and the furthest is 100mm away. Each distance has doubled in the same time period.<br /><br />The factor changes over time - Now we use a 100mm rubber band instead of a ruler. We are in the centre at 50mm. As the band expands the edge moves from 50mm to 100mm away, but the mark 1mm away hardy moves a fraction of a millimetre, rather than doubling in distance.<br /><br />The edge of the band represents the time around 500 million years after the big-bang, when galaxies first appeared. The closest mark to the centre represents recent times. The way the rubber band stretches mimics the effect of a changing rate of expansion over time.<br /><br />In this example, it is the changing rate of expansion, the slowing down, that makes space-time rubber-like, rather than ruler-like.<br /><br />Why? Well general relativity tells us that there is something that everyone agrees upon, and that thing is <b>absolute space-time</b>. Observers in relative motion will not agree on simultaneous events or even perhaps where those events took place, they will however agree upon those events overall trajectory through space-time. This is why Einstein didn't actually like the name general relativity, he wanted to call it Invariance th</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

True. However, if one IS proven false, perhaps that would finally spur those who write the science textbooks and teach biology and physics to have students question the survivor more. Too often we tell students, including grade schoolers, that evolution and the big bang are facts. If you don't mention there are other possibilities and/or mention that theories have yet to be proven, you might as well call them fact. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<font color="cyan">Evolution wouldn't make it very far without statistics... "Observation" would pretty much be impossible without a properly formed and tested statistical model, wouldn't it? </font><br /><br /><br />I would have no trouble accepting BB had it been put together after traveling from galaxy to galaxy and star to star and collecting data along the way just as Darwin did with his specimen. Yes i think you can pass statistics as math. <br /><br />Here are some why I say BB theory is premature. I was reading an article in an old physics today magazine. It claims G~/G is decreasing by 6x10^-11 per year. G is Newtons gravitation constant and G~ is its time derivative. That's not all. Earth radius is increasing due to constant creation of matter at a rate of .2mm to .3mm per year. Both have profound impact on cosmology. <br /><br />I dont know if these claims are true, but this type of simple experiments, if they turn out to be true, can derail BB theory in next 50 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[adrenalynn]

<font color="yellow">I would have no trouble accepting BB had it been put together after traveling from galaxy to galaxy and star to star and collecting data along the way just as Darwin did with his specimen</font><br /><br />So your complaint is with theoretical models. The problem here is that without theoretical models we would still be crawling around in caves. There are too many things in this universe that we will *never* be able to reach out and poke. A further issue, of course, is when reaching out and poking deceives, as it so frequently does. Mathematical modeling is the only reality-check we have. There are few models that don't have at least _some_ experimental data behind them. That's why we have the models, as an attempt to explain that which we have observed. As our observations become more advanced, our models are tweaked to reflect that which we observe. Or we question both the model and the observation - and that's an equally important concept.<br /><br />Without mathematical modeling, you and I wouldn't be having the conversation we're having right now. Certainly nothing leading to the advent of computing science and the subsequent progression would be possible today. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[adrenalynn]

<font color="yellow"><br />Our models of the unobservable, are defined by the laws of the observed.<br /></font><br /><br />Alas, many times our own eyes and measurements fail us. Before we had our telescopes to reach out and our spectrum analysers to assess composition, we believed that stars were pinholes poked in the ether and that the sky was just a piece of something like construction paper...<br /><br />If our observations don't fit our models we have one of three possible challenges:<br /><br />1) Our model is incorrect. Can we fix it up without breaking it and make it fit the observation?<br /><br />2) If we can't, then we need to take a look at our observations. Could they be inaccurate? Could we be tricked?<br /><br />3) We don't know what the heck is going on. We're clueless. No model, no observation, just nothing but a WAG (Wild A** Guess)<br /><br />Theoretical models and Applied observation both have their place. In my opinion, they are equally important and equally valid. Without the equal application of the applied and the theoretical, we would be no where, IMHO...<br /><br />* Full disclosure: I was a math major, with advanced degrees in the field, and work in numerical analysis as well as discrete mathematics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<font color="cyan">Without mathematical modeling, you and I wouldn't be having the conversation we're having right now</font><br /><br />I hear this type sentences like a broken record. I guess I have to repeat my view, theoretical astrophysicists/astronomers have got carried away with their maths because of tremendous success of math in other branches of science on EARTH. With a little effort one can see the difference in math we use for earthly matters and math we use for cosmos. I'll point out only 2 differences. <br /><br />1) We can easily verify any prediction by math on earth.<br />2) How many singularities and infinities do we see in the theories of solid state physics, nuclear/atomics physics, or even quantum mechanics which are used to build things for our everyday life?<br /><br />I'm not aware of any so far. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>