What Is the Big Bang Theory?

[Admin]

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began.

What Is the Big Bang Theory? : Read more

 

[Catastrophe]

Quote
While we can understand how the universe we see came to be, it's possible that the Big Bang was not the first inflationary period the universe experienced. Some scientists believe we live in a cosmos that goes through regular cycles of inflation and deflation, and that we just happen to be living in one of these phases.
Quote

Got there eventually, but not sure about the intervening stuff.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Eeek! My points about BBT aren't coming across effectively I see.

There is no scientific theory that establishes within the framework of modern physics a singularity beginning. If so, show me the equation that from said model/theory that calculates the density and temperature at the singularity.

Supposition, inference, metaphysics, pseudoscience are the correct terms to use when addressing the possibility of a singularity.

BBT is a model that was established using GR to demonstrate that the Universe is expanding, thus it includes, with strong predictions, all the physical events that would have occurred in the past. This model works especially well to the time of Recombination (ie CMBR), which was ~ 380k years since the beginning. It also works well, thanks to quantum physics, down to the first nanosecond or more.

But when the physics is applied to the first Planck unit of time and the results are that the "wheels go flying off the wagon", then the theory is no longer valid. But a theory doesn't have to include this problem, no more than Darwin's theory for evolution was required to explain abiogenesis.

Also, there is no objective evidence for any of those many non-observable universes (ie multiverse "theories"), since "non-observable" has an explicit meaning.

 

[Catastrophe]

"Supposition, inference, metaphysics, pseudoscience are the correct approach to a singularity."

Well, I agree that the singularity suggestion is nonsensical.

Cat

 

[Helio]

"Supposition, inference, metaphysics, pseudoscience are the correct approach to a singularity."

Well, I agree that the singularity suggestion is nonsensical.

I actually can't argue it's non-sensical because it's so easily inferred. But if one is to present a description of what BBT is, it is wiser, IMO, to work backwards as it was originally derived to better address what it describes. Unfortunately, BBT certainly argues for a beginning, and it's easy to want to start at a place we call a "beginning" but not if we must be forced to include a t=0 story.

Also, in my post above, you might have noticed how Universe and universe both work in the way you intended.

 

[Catastrophe]

"I actually can't argue it's non-sensical because it's so easily inferred."

Drawing a line through a plurality of points may facilitate an inference, no matter how many lines might be possible. And why straight lines, even in log-log graphs? Why should a straight line prove that the Universe gets forever smaller in one direction and larger in the other, both approaching the glorious limits of the god of division by zero? "Gobbledegook", said Mr. Micawber.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Great Expectations (Classics Illustrated): Amazon.co.uk ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk › Expectations-Classics-Illust...

Buy Great Expectations (Classics Illustrated) 1 by Dickens, Charles (ISBN: ... many of the worlds most notable fictional characters, including Fagin, Mr Micawber and Miss ... The text is gobbledegook right from the start. ... A lot of the time, I wasn't too sure what was going on, who a character was or what they were saying.

I admit that I don't know whether he actually said gobbledegook in the book.

Cat

 

[rod]

The space.com article has 12 references to *inflation* and 5 references to *multiverse*. Einstein GR run backwards for the expanding space leads to the singularity - no way out. Quantum gravity is used to avoid now and the new physics leads to many interesting concepts like infinite temperature at the moment of the BB event and radiation traveling at infinite velocity too. Lorentz-violating dynamics in the pre-Planckian Universe, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvD..85f3502S/abstract, March 2012.

My observation. Solving the horizon problem and flatness problem in BB cosmology by postulating infinite speed of light at moment of the BB event. Very interesting physics used. No need for inflation apparently. 7 page report attached and 13 references to *infinite* as well as infinite speed of light and radiation particles at the moment of the BB event. Inflation features 3D space expanding > 10^21 c velocity and Alan Guth uses repulsive gravity too. Both the pre-Planckian universe and inflation require enormous expansion speed changes for 3D space to occur in nature compared to the Hubble constant value today, > 10^49 expansion speed decrease and changes.

Ralph Alpher and George Gamow original prediction for the background radiation now known as the CMBR was about 51 K degrees. Today we have inflation, multiverse, and post-inflation universe models explaining our origins and the origin of the universe based upon time and chance, using exotic physics and decreases in space expansion by some 10^49 order of magnitude or more. Somehow in all of this dynamic, evolutionary transformation, the electron popped out with a stable mass and potential stable lifetime 6.6 x 10^28 years, ref - Still Waiting For Electron Decay, https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/s138, 03-December-2015. Many other constants popped out of this early soup too, just right

 

[Helio]

Drawing a line through a plurality of points may facilitate an inference, no matter how many lines might be possible. And why straight lines, even in log-log graphs? Why should a straight line prove that the Universe gets forever smaller in one direction and larger in the other, both approaching the glorious limits of the god of division by zero? "Gobbledegook", said Mr. Micawber.

Agreed, but when those lines are less than a nanosecond of travel for someone who has already traveled 13.8 billion years, it's tough to be too critical. Yet too many want to stretch science to go there and I object; like an artist drawing a bikini on science when formal attire is more appropriate. It may sell more books, and every headline should have a little sizzle, but....

 

[Helio]

The space.com article has 12 references to *inflation* and 5 references to *multiverse*. Einstein GR run backwards for the expanding space leads to the singularity - no way out.

Anytime the run is made where the boundary between science and pseudoscience is crossed, the way out is to not cross that boundary, unless proper signage is placed to avoid collisions, etc.

My observation. Solving the horizon problem and flatness problem in BB cosmology by postulating infinite speed of light at moment of the BB event. Very interesting physics used. No need for inflation apparently. 7 page report attached and 13 references to *infinite* as well as infinite speed of light and radiation particles at the moment of the BB event. Inflation features 3D space expanding > 10^21 c velocity and Alan Guth uses repulsive gravity too. Both the pre-Planckian universe and inflation require enormous expansion speed changes for 3D space to occur in nature compared to the Hubble constant value today, > 10^49 expansion speed decrease and changes.

Yes, when physics needs inflation to solve those two problems, there should be additional signage along the road. Guth's, et. al., inflation model may still be correct, but it is less convincing than the BBT in the later years of expansion.

But Lemitre's original model didn't take us into the quantum world, just as Darwin didn't take us to abiogenesis.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio:
"but when those lines are less than a nanosecond of travel for someone who has already traveled 13.8 billion years"

But if there is a singularity after the previous 13.8 billion years, and the previous 13.8 billion years could just as soon do without the singularity, I'd rather take the latter . . . . . . . . .

Cat

 

[Helio]

But if there is a singularity after the previous 13.8 billion years, and the previous 13.8 billion years could just as soon do without the singularity, I'd rather take the latter . . . . . . . . .

If you see it as a choice, like me, and thus something far more subjective than objective, then my point is to keep the BBT on the high road, and only go where formal science can take us -- the ballroom vs. the bikini disco.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, I think there are some things in the new thread on Singularities in the Agreed terms series now open. Some interesting ideas about the singularity being open to persuasion.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, I think there are some things in the new thread on Singularities in the Agreed terms series now open. Some interesting ideas about the singularity being open to persuasion.

Right. And there is certainly math out there that claims singularities can avoid infinities.

"all terms are finite and smooth everywhere, including at the singularity "
Here.

But there is a difference between math and physics, as Einstein noted when he ridiculed Lemaitre and Friedman.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, I am about to start including up to date magazine quotes, so I should be getting up to 2021, but not authoritative as books but very up to date. Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, I am about to start including up to date magazine quotes, so I should be getting up to 2021, but not authoritative as books but very up to date. Cat

My guess is you will see some mind-boggling math, which may look like physics, but we may be unqualified to say what percent of it is physics. If the math can calculate the temperature at t= 0, and provide some objective tests that can be obtained, then we will likely have another attachment to the BBT as we have with Inflation - a trifecta theory.

 

[Catastrophe]

Right. And there is certainly math out there that claims singularities can avoid infinities.

"all terms are finite and smooth everywhere, including at the singularity "
Here.

But there is a difference between math and physics, as Einstein noted when he ridiculed Lemaitre and Friedman.

Thanks. I will quote "here" if that's OK 2017 is pretty recent