What would it take to falsify the "big bang" model of cosmology?

Page 5 - 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.
Oct 31, 2022
12
0
10
Is negative energy the same as potential energy? as you increase distance between two objects potential energy increases, this is in concordance with conservation of energy. Work must be done in order to separate these objects. The energy for this work is dark energy. So we have an increase in dark energy + potential energy which is not in concordance with conservation of energy.
 
Nov 19, 2021
597
268
1,260
Bill, please explain how gravitational energy is negative and becomes more negative as matter is separated by inflation of the distance between masses.
I don't understand it myself. The explanations I have read simply say that cosmologists assign a negative value to gravitational potential energy. I need to read up on it some more.
 
I don't understand it myself. The explanations I have read simply say that cosmologists assign a negative value to gravitational potential energy. I need to read up on it some more.
You might enjoy looking at “action physics”. Hilbert used this alternative approach to GR that forced Einstein to work extra fast to beat Hilbert to the solution.

It’s not something I have studied but its basic approach you’ll find familiar — PE & KE.

Is negative energy the same as potential energy? as you increase distance between two objects potential energy increases, this is in concordance with conservation of energy. Work must be done in order to separate these objects. The energy for this work is dark energy. So we have an increase in dark energy + potential energy which is not in concordance with conservation of energy.
When a force moves an object in the direction of that force, positive work is done. So, if it moves in the direction of the force, it gains the label “negative”.
 
So far, this "negative gravitational energy" is coming across like B.S. to me.

At least in Newtonian physics, we look at the work needed to raise a mass against gravity as an expenditure of energy. So, some sort of energy source has a negative increment to do that process. And the process ends up storing gravitational energy in the separation of the mass from the big mass (usually Earth) that it is attracted to, so that is a positive energy increment o f energy that can then be used to do useful work. If the process thta raised the mass was 100% efficient, the net change in total energy would be zero. But, it usually is not 100% effective, and some of the energy used ends up as heat in some medium that was involve in that process. When including the "waste heat", we expect to see energy conserved.

If somebody thinks that is not the way it works in General Relativity or the Big Bang Theory, please explain the different perspective in plain terms. Don't just provide a link to an equation that you say you don't understand.

The statement that "energy is not conserved in cosmology" needs a very strong proof to be credible, because conservation of energy is a law of physics, and I thought cosmology assumes that physical laws are applicable the same throughout the cosmos. Theories that require energy to continuously come from nowhere forever do not seem like they should be "main stream" explanations of our astronomy observations.
 
Yeah, there’s many ways to look at it.

Recall that the history behind DE comes from Einstein’s cosmological term, which was dreamed-up as some sort of force thatopposed gravity so the Static universe model would remain static.

My amateur view sees two possibilities:
1) It’s a negative energy that does as I mentioned above — a force on matter that pushes matter away rather than bring matter together. Anti-gravitons or some other currently ad-hoc view.

But we didn’t do this for nuclei. Given the huge EM opposing force between protons in a nucleus, did a negative EM field approach solve it? We found the strong nuclear force, which is not negative, AFAIK.

Notice I left out space time, thus this view is greatly weakened by what GR has to say, no doubt.

So…
2) A positive force exists that pushes on space time, if such is allowed.

Also, the desire to have a net zero universe plays a key role favoring negative anything, thus something from nothing becomes less crazy.
 
Oct 31, 2022
12
0
10
Yeah, there’s many ways to look at it.

Recall that the history behind DE comes from Einstein’s cosmological term, which was dreamed-up as some sort of force thatopposed gravity so the Static universe model would remain static.

My amateur view sees two possibilities:
1) It’s a negative energy that does as I mentioned above — a force on matter that pushes matter away rather than bring matter together. Anti-gravitons or some other currently ad-hoc view.

But we didn’t do this for nuclei. Given the huge EM opposing force between protons in a nucleus, did a negative EM field approach solve it? We found the strong nuclear force, which is not negative, AFAIK.

Notice I left out space time, thus this view is greatly weakened by what GR has to say, no doubt.

So…
2) A positive force exists that pushes on space time, if such is allowed.

Also, the desire to have a net zero universe plays a key role favoring negative anything, thus something from nothing becomes less crazy.
my amateur view:

space is nothing. There is no aether. There is no fabric of space. space/time should rather be described as empty volume/time
space doesnt expand, an empty volume cannot be acted upon. I think the time is the factor that changes causing the observed expansion.


P.S. Matter affects time, thus this possibly puts matter as the source of dark energy, rather than evenly distributed throughout the universe. which i think is much more likely
 
Last edited:
my amateur view:

space is nothing. There is no aether. There is no fabric of space. space/time should rather be described as empty volume/time
space doesnt expand, an empty volume cannot be acted upon. I think the time is the factor that changes causing the observed expansion.


P.S. Matter affects time, thus this possibly puts matter as the source of dark energy, rather than evenly distributed throughout the universe. which i think is much more likely
The incredible success of GR speaks otherwise. Also, check-out the Casimir experiment.
 
Inflation theory does make predictions. It was developed to explain observations, so the more these are studied the more, or less, credit is found in Inflation theory. BBT will still have the many lines of strong objective evidence supporting it that no alternative theory has come close to touching.

This statement from the article is the real bunk...

Unfortunately, their idea involves using futuristic radiation detectors built on technology that doesn’t currently exist. So, to sum up, they’ve theoretically debunked the Big Bang theory as it currently stands by providing an alternative theory that, currently, isn’t much more testable than the old one.”

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b0e
for discussion of an alternative theory, a potential way to test it, and an argument that the BBT is not "falsifiable" so not a proper theory due to its lack of proper test capability.
Well, I did see this...”We use the term “paradigm” and not “model” since any given inflationary model is clearly falsifiable, whereas these doubts concern the inflationary scenario as a whole.” [my bold]

[But isn’t “paradigm” and “model” synonymous?]

[Back from a trip only to get Covid]
 
I don't know that that General Relativity Theory helps explain what "space" is. It has been extremely successful in predicting how "space/time" will be perceived by observers in at least the places where we have been able to make observations that test the model.

There seems to be a lot of misinterpretation of what Relativity theories say about "space". The theory of Special Relativity was developed from the failure of an experiment that was intended to determine our velocity through an expected medium (an "aether") that would fill "space" and be the medium that carries electromagnetic waves. When it was determined that observers could not measure any difference in the speed of light in any direction, despite knowing that we were traveling in opposite directions on opposite sides of the sun at 6 month intervals, the Lorentz Transformations were developed to describe how measurements of time and length (thus measurements of speed) must be connected so as to produce that apparent invariant speed of light.

Some people have taken the failure of that experiment to mean "There is no aether through which electromagnetic waves travel." However, the experiment does not necessarily prove that. And, quantum theorists insist that space is filled with "fields" of several kinds. How are those "fields" different from an "aether"?

Going a bit further, most people think of something like an "electric field" as the map of the effect of an electrical charge at some distance from its location. And they think of electromagnetic radiation (e.g., light, radio waves) as changes in that effect as the charge moves its location, with the effect traveling at the speed of light through space to locations farther away from the charge's position. But, quantum theorists turn that understanding on its head, and assume that the field is the thing that is "real" and the charge, say an electron, is simply a local wave oscillation of that field. So, the "fields" are everywhere in space. Isn't that effectively the medium of transmission for light that people previously called "aether"?

Whatever, Relativity theories seem to tell us more about time than space.
 
And all that it has taught us we ignore and stick with linear time as if its not variable at all.
That is not true, considering that we correct the timing of our GPS signals for relativistic effects. But, I don't think you could convince your boss that you really were not late for work because it is all a matter of perspective related to different previous speeds of travel.

However, I do agree that concepts like expansion of space/time seem to think of passage of time as occurring at a constant rate while space expands. Why wouldn't time expand as space expands? Or, is it that the interval of measurement of time expands as space expands, so that the rate of passage of time seems to get slower?
 
I don't know that that General Relativity Theory helps explain what "space" is. It has been extremely successful in predicting how "space/time" will be perceived by observers in at least the places where we have been able to make observations that test the model.
“Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.” John Wheeler

Space and time get altered by the presence of matter, thus space isn't a nothing, though I doubt a full explanation will come our way as to what it is.


Some people have taken the failure of that experiment to mean "There is no aether through which electromagnetic waves travel." However, the experiment does not necessarily prove that. And, quantum theorists insist that space is filled with "fields" of several kinds. How are those "fields" different from an "aether"?
The aether is as you had earlier stated, a medium to be the carrier for wave propagation (light). The M-M experiment didn't falsify an aether only to show that it is superfluous for light.

So, the "fields" are everywhere in space. Isn't that effectively the medium of transmission for light that people previously called "aether"?
But fields have motion in space, so wouldn't lightspeed appear different (ala M - M) if these are light carriers, similar to the aether?

Whatever, Relativity theories seem to tell us more about time than space.
That's how I see it too, though I think many will argue length contraction (Lorentz) explains it equally well. It's interesting that the explanations (calculations) are mutually exclusive -- one can chose to use time dilation or length contraction, but never both. Why is that?
 
Once I start thinking about space expansion and matter, I see a lot of issues that don't seem to be getting much attention.

For instance, the BBT postulates that "space" "inflated" and that separated matter by carrying it along with the space that it was in. However, matter can move through space under the influence of gravity and other forces (e.g. inertial reaction of force such as rocket propellant exhaust, photon reflection, etc.).

So, how does "space" interact with matter so that when it "moves" it moves matter? It does not seem to be a rigid connection. So, during BBT "Inflation", did matter lag behind "space" at all? And, in the vicinity of black holes, we say that matter "warps" space, but why does it not make space move continuously, flowing into the gravitational well. If matter sticks to space, and matter flows into gravitational wells, then why is it not dragging some space in with it?

There seem to be a lot of issues like that where theorists propose something to satisfy a problem in their desired theory, yet they seem to have no desire to consider the other consequences of their proposals beyond whatever they need to make their theory "work". In some cases, it seems that those other consequences might make their theory not work.

As for how matter sticks to space or "fields" in space, the Higgs Field seems to need properties that other fields do not have, such as "stickiness" to make matter have mass and behave the way we observe macroscopically.
 
So, how does "space" interact with matter so that when it "moves" it moves matter? It does not seem to be a rigid connection.
If space tells matter where to move, then matter is simply taking the path of least resistance. How's that for an answer that re-asks the question? :) The question becomes "what resistance?".

So, during BBT "Inflation", did matter lag behind "space" at all?
At that time, there was no matter, only energy. So I assume both space and energy (wavelength) stretch uniformly. But there are other inflation models that might need to address any sort of lag, if one fits the model

If matter sticks to space, and matter flows into gravitational wells, then why is it not dragging some space in with it?
Matter moves through space but, somehow, when spacetime is curved, matter moves along the curve, as when a planet orbits a star. I try to envision more of a radial gradient where space is stretched more when closer to the mass affecting it. Time is affected as well. But this isn't much of a clear picture, so I too have questions.

There seem to be a lot of issues like that where theorists propose something to satisfy a problem in their desired theory, yet they seem to have no desire to consider the other consequences of their proposals beyond whatever they need to make their theory "work".
Theories are always about trying to articulate what is observed. More observations can naturally lead to either a more robust model by constant verification -- laws come from these -- or a model that might become robust only if tweaked. When tweaking breaks the model, then a new model is required. Scientists love to make new models, but they also hate to see their "baby" get tossed-out. Planck once stated that "Science advances one funeral at a time." :) I stumbled on an article supporting this found... here.

As for how matter sticks to space or "fields" in space, the Higgs Field seems to need properties that other fields do not have, such as "stickiness" to make matter have mass and behave the way we observe macroscopically.
But does it also stick to spacetime itself?
 
But does it also stick to spacetime itself?
If the Higgs Field is what gives matter mass, and if "Inflation" and/or "dark energy" move masses farther apart in space by increasing the "amount" of space between them, then I don't see any other interpretation than the Higgs Field is moved by space moving. But, I am no expert on quantum mechanics, much less the Higgs Field. My problem is that the people who claim expertise on such things don't seem to be experts at explaining how their thinking works out in the "big picture" of cosmology or local macroscopic reality. Assuming that space is filled with all sorts of "fields" would seem to raise a question about how those fields interact with each other and behave when time and space do the things that they say they do in their theories. Some of the BBT assumes that some fields were not in existence at some early times, and that some early fields "separated" into other fields like they theorize exist now. But, I have no clue why they would think those thoughts except that they make their theory work OK against available observations. Some of this doesn't come across as much different from the ancient priests blaming everything on the interactions of "gods" in the sky - the story fits the observations, and nobody seems to be able to disprove the theory. The only change comes from somebody figuring out why something happens in a much more demonstrable fashion.
 
Oct 31, 2022
12
0
10
How is that? SR is a part of GR. Einstein added gravity to SR, which became GR.
SR was developed in response the Michelson–Morley experiment. It was an alternative to the luminiferous ether theory. The ether of GR is TIME, it is not a fabric of space but only a metric.

In Special Relativity the ether does not exist and absolute motion is devoid of meaning.
 
SR was developed in response the Michelson–Morley experiment.
That was evidence for Einstein’s view, but he was addressing a growing problem of how physics would be frame dependent, but by making c invariant he established inertial frames to allow physics to function normally, though the transformation equations are needed to go from one frame to another. Also, Maxwell (1865) showed that the speed of EM propagation (light) was a constant. Einstein seemed to respect this more than most. The M-M experiment verified this hypothesis.

The ether of GR is TIME, it is not a fabric of space but only a metric.
Time isn’t treated like an ether; it’s a dimension. Fixing c in SR causes time dilation between frame motions. This applies to the broader picture found in GR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
A few moments reflection is sufficient to solve this question.

The absolutely vital and essential question which demands an answer is posed by Robotron:

What would it take to falsify the "big bang" model of cosmology? | Space.com Forums

“That's fine. So a few questions remain:
1) How many of the items you've noted were expressly *predicted* by the BB model--as opposed to being folded into the BB model *after* they were observed?
2) If observations were incorporated into the BB model *after* they were made, were there alternate models that would also have incorporated them with fewer "tweaks" (or no tweaks at all)?
3) What observation could be made that would invalidate the BB? Ancient objects older than 15 billion years? Local quasars? "Too evolved" distant objects? Evidence that redshift does not always indicate distance?

Or would every new observation outside the already largely arbitrary boundaries simply be folded into the expanding universe model under the assumption that "some variable is missing"? In other words, what could *possibly* be observed that would cause cosmologists to seriously question the BB's fundamental premise?
The very simple solution is obvious to anyone versed in the writings of Korzybski, e.g., in Science and Sanity. "The map is not the territory".

For those who are not acquainted with my previous posts, e.g., https://forums.space.com/threads/big-bang-evidence.55635/page-2#post-573467

The crux of the question is that division by zero to produce an "infinite" quantity, is a mathematical operation, not a scientific procedure. For example, in mathematics, equations that are derived to explain natural processes may include 1/x. When x is equal to 0, there is a divide by zero error which may result in a singularity, e.g., a finite mass in an infinitesimally small volume, yielding an infinite density. In physics, however, other things usually obtain which make these equations break down as x gets close to zero, preventing these singularities from actually occurring.
In other words, a clear nonsense is being included within the definition of an otherwise seemingly viable statement. If one sees the "singularity" for which science has no basis, one might just as logically substitute the "nexus" of a cyclic system. This is not to say that cyclic systems are devoid of question, but the "singularity" cannot be retained over something less improbable.

What is essential is that one does not lump together the non-viable impossible (in the real world) with something which may seem admissible (in the real world) - and treat such an unhealthy combination as something which can be described as one concept and sanely discussed. No logical result is to be expected.

Cat :)

P.S. Neither can I see any backward extrapolation of an expansion to a single point as being in any way justified - even more so, when the expansion itself is not smooth, and the more so when punctuated by an expansion of spacetime at greater than light speed. Why not an expansion back to a non-infinitesimal nexus?
 
Last edited:
Just my thinking. Two items are not presently seen in nature today in astronomy. 1. the original, pristine Big Bang gas clouds that existed in nature *before the CMBR appears as light* 2. Population III stars - so far not observed directly.

If these two never existed in nature, in my view the explanation for the origin of the CMBR in BB model, falls apart. The universe never existed originally in a small, dense, super-hot state for its origin. That means no cosmic fireball created the CMBR we see today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Just my thinking. Two items are not presently seen in nature today in astronomy. 1. the original, pristine Big Bang gas clouds that existed in nature *before the CMBR appears as light*
The inability to see these clouds is a prediction in BBT.

2. Population III stars - so far not observed directly.
The 3 populations are also a prediction within BBT. Not seeing a number of Pop III stars in any nearby galaxy is a prediction of BBT. Struggling to see Pop III stars in their extremely distant past is also an implicit prediction of BBT.

If these two never existed in nature, in my view the explanation for the origin of the CMBR in BB model, falls apart.
To falsify the BBT you’ll need to offer observed evidence, not unobservable evidence.

The Pop III stars, however, are observable in principle, but even the JWST isn’t powerful enough, I think, to get their specra directly.

Quasars offer an indirect solution in providing evidence for Pop III stars, as may already be the case in this paper.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts