Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 arri
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 19
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?Page 2 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
We have a minimum of 14 billion years to figure out how the universe was created. What's the rush?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 31
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 2/5/2007 10:39:37 PM


I'm perfectly willing to consider an alternate model, but you don't presently have one.


The Big Bang Theory isn't a very good one, and cosmologists should seriously consider dropping it even in the absence of a better alternative. There are numerous problems with the BBT. Several modifications to the BBT have been introduced to account for the observational problems. That, in itself, is not a problem. In fact, that's generally how science progresses. The problem is that these additional hypotheses are considered correct even though they lack corroborating evidence.

A similar situation existed with Newton's theory of gravity. Observations of the orbit of Uranus were in disagreement with the predictions of Newton's theory. It was proposed that another planet might be causing perterbations in the orbit of Uranus. Scientists were able to use Newton's theory to predict where this hypothetical planet would be. They pointed their telescopes at that spot and discovered Neptune. After further observations of Neptunes orbit it was discovered that were discrepencies. Again scientists postulated another planet, and thus Pluto was discovered. Then discrepencies were discovered in Mercury's orbit. Again they postulated a planet called Vulcan. But Vulcan was no where to be found. Eventually Einstein's theory of gravity replaced Newton's. It's first major victory was to explain the orbit of Mercury. If today's scientists were around 100 years ago they would have assumed that vulcan was made out of some kind of strange dark matter that they couldn't see.
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 40
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 2/6/2007 7:58:24 PM
Matter can be created when photons collide.

In the beginning, God said let there be light.

The term Big Bang should be dropped, as sound waves cannot travel in the vacuum of space.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 46
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 2/6/2007 10:40:01 PM


Aha! But I didn't ask "Where in SPACE," did I?


Well you asked where the "balloon" was. The "balloon" is in your imagination. The "balloon" represents spacetime. Maybe the answer to "where is the balloon" is everywhere/everywhen.



As far as I'm soncerned, there still had to be somewhere for the theoretical "little ball o' Universe" to actually BE.


The universe is all that there is. It's not in anything.

I think that maybe the conceptual difficulty is imaging an expanding universe that isn't expanding into anything. The universe is all there is so clearly it can't be expanding into anything. Instead, think of it as the definition of unit distance (and time intervals) is getting smaller. Or put a different way, imagine our rulers are getting smaller. So at one moment the universe might be 5 units across and then a few moments later it's 6 units across.
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 48
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 2/6/2007 10:53:17 PM

Matter can be created when photons collide.

You are at best asserting that colliding photons can change states.

It's been a while since I saw the data. But, as I recall, it's something like a photon collides with another photon and a proton is created. It was proven in some particle accelerator.

The truth is out there.
 SaintElsewhere
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 2/7/2007 9:03:36 AM
The model you've quoted 'works' in simulation, meaning it's plausible and possible, but given current data most cosmologists believe the universe will continue expanding at an ever greater rate. Also, that model doesn't suggest "no Big Bang", rather "MANY Big Bangs".
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 70
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 2/13/2007 10:54:38 PM


the universe looks generally the same no matter where you are.


The idea that the matter distribution of the universe is homogenous is a myth. On all observational scales it's been found to be inhomogenous. One of the foundational flaws of the BB is the assumption of homogeneity. There simply isn't any evidence for it.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 73
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 2/14/2007 8:02:16 AM
^^^^Probably a bit of both. The intensity of light decreases with the square of distance. There will always be a technological limit to how far we can see. Though hopefully technology will continue to get better in this regard. It's also important to recognize that celestial objects have finite lives. There are things out there that are newly born but we'll never see them we'll be long dead before the light reaches us. There are things out there that no longer exist beyond the light they've given off that hasn't reached us yet.
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 80
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 2/15/2007 4:12:41 AM
In reference to Message 80:

In spite of the complexity of present-day supercomputers and multi-core processors, they are very, very far from being alive or sentient.

Even if someone were to connect 10 billion transistors in a parallel network and turn on the power, it would not be alive.

Human consciousness (in a physical sense) exists as a bio-electrical chemical system. Even if it becomes possible to copy that into a machine (and that's a pretty big IF), the original would still be there. I feel that something would be lost in that copy process.

Seeing ourselves and our surroundings as we do is not an illusion; it is reality as we are designed to perceive it.

And on topic:

Like I said before, there was no Big Bang. It was a big flash of light, as in Let There Be Light.

And for the record, I don't believe we should accept each and every word of the Bible (and I'm not a religious person by any means). But that whole Let There Be Light thing. . . I firmly believe that was simply describing the creation of the Universe in it's simplest terms. And I'd say it's accurate.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 84
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 2/18/2007 12:59:38 PM


The most recent wmap CMB spectrum analysis suggests that the radiation generated when the universe was very young was to a high degree both isotropic and homogeneous.


This is true. It's so true that cosmologists don't have any good explanations for how the matter distributions has become so lumpy in the lifetime of the universe (I find dark matter, dark energy, and inflation highly speculative and without observational foundation).



The formation of large scale structures and superclusters seems to be evidence of this....however I have not heard of any evidence falsifying isotropy.


Nor have I. But as you say, they are independent. I should amend that by say that at least on some scales it's clearly nonisotropic. One can see that by looking at the night sky. But at large scales I'm told that isotropy is well established. I haven't investigated this further and maybe I should because we frequently hear that the universe is homogenous even though there's no evidence for that.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 3/6/2007 11:16:20 PM
I would just like to congratulate George Smoot, the man who won the Nobel Prize for proving the Big Bang Theory to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Feel free to look him up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot
In there you'll find all you need to know.

Nice article. Very compelling. I think next week I'll make a simulation of the universe being built from a strand of spaghetti.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 95
view profile
History
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 3/25/2007 2:23:22 PM

lol, the big bang theory was derived by the same paradigm that has evolved flat worlds - it is but a logical derivation & extension of a linear & body-centered, single & radiating source paradigm.....a paradigm in which alternatives can & do exist......one day our futures will see big bangs being read alongside flat worlds and crosses and apollo driving the sun across the sky........lol, the big bang, insomuch as its a single & radiating source theory, and physical in its entirety - did not exist.......this theory is delivered by the same that think they will find an answer to pi, which is naught but trying to fit a square peg in a round hole....your modern science is nothing but another belief system..... paradigm-philosophorum dot net expands this

you must have had a brief moment of lucidity when you chose your PoF name, because it suits you perfectly.

and montanan19769617, just in case you're alluding to evidence of a global flood, I'm sure you realize that if there really was one in the last few thousand years that the evidence of it would be so blatanly obvious that deaf dumb and blind people would stumble on it all over the place.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 99
view profile
History
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 3/25/2007 11:12:01 PM
okay, I guess I misunderstood you montanan. My dumb, sorry.

Yes we do witness the improbable every day. I wouldn't think we're the only living ones out there. Especially after this 17min video I watched last night of an alien autopsy in 1947 *shudders*

But anyways someone asked me a question about probability. He said what are the odds that earth happens to be just the right distance from the sun to maintain life? That's so unlikely that its impossible. Clearly, someone designed it all.

My reply to him was that my daughter is the most amazing person I've ever met. The odds of her turning out just the way she did is nearly infinitely remote. Whoa, those are steep odds. Following that reasoning, I guess she doesn't exist.
And as for earth being just the right distance, well, a million other earths broke orbit and flew away or smashed into other interstellar bodies and ours happened to be the one that locked into the sun's gravitation. More unlikely things happen every day.
 Coach Andrew
Joined: 1/30/2007
Msg: 135
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/6/2008 2:16:37 PM
I wouldn't call the theory wrong -- just that there's a possibility of more than one Big Bang. Every time the cycle begins anew, it's the Big Bang. The question would remain, however, as to how matter came into existence in the first place, and would there have been a first cycle? Perhaps, many trillions of years ago, there was nothing (or just energy), then something, then the cycle began.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 136
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/6/2008 7:59:21 PM
Nope, the Big Bang is alive and well and thriving as only a good theory can do. It is supported by evidence that is all but incontrovertible. Of course the question of what came "before" remains a mystery that will likely never be truly solved until we can find a way to leave our universe without ceasing to exist.

In the meantime, a bunch of really smart people doing maths I couldn't even begin to comprehend work away at ever increasingly complex formulae to model the universe and other universes that might exist. Oh, to be that smart.
 shmodzilla
Joined: 10/6/2008
Msg: 138
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/16/2008 10:10:17 PM
Coach Andrew be careful. You can drive yourself mad thinking about questions like that. My father and i had the how can the univerise be infinite conversation a few years back. And the ,well if it is not infinite then what is there question. Dammit man now i am going to be up all night thinking about that crap. Sure the hell glad the army gave me night night drugs.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 139
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/18/2008 9:12:39 AM

How about this... "Once upon a time, there was infinite potential energy!"


That works. The only energies which can be measured are differences in energy, so the infinity can't have any physical meaning.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 140
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/18/2008 9:41:44 AM

The Big Bang Theory is based on the observed back ground radiation. That it matches the theoretcial predicted values. And the observable expansion of our universe. And the farther out into space we observe, the farther back in time we are observing. It appears that there was a point in time, in the distant past, in which our observed universe came into being. I believe there is a mathamatical bases to suppose there was never any singularity.

The only theory of space and time which is supported by any physical evidence is general relativity. General relativity is the mathematical basis for presuming the initial singularity.

So that would support a seemingly expanding and collapsing universe. Right know, I think, the universe could really be in a collapse, with the illusion of expansion. The local universe seemingly expanding faster than in the distant past.

The actual data indicate the expansion is accelerating, so both theory and data contradict the expansion/collapse idea. Any revision will require a quantum theory of gravity.

The geometery of our universe is weird. The center of the universe is at what see and think is its outer edges. It is like being in side the event horizon of a so-called black hole. The whole universe being inside its own event horizon.


The universe has no edges. That is a general property of the geometry. The singularity which produces the event horizon of a black hole is completely different from the singularity of the big bang. After crossing the event horizon of a black hole, the universe outside remains visible, since light from the outside continues to fall across the horizon and reach you. If you lived long enough to reach the singularity, you would get to observe what was the entire future of the universe until you decided to plummet into the black hole. Inside the hole, time ends at the singularity and the singularity occupies all of space. The singularity is called spacelike. The singularity is not observable. The singularity of a black hole is always in your future, so observing it would be like observing tomorrow. The interior solution in schwartzchild coordinates shows that the time coordinate is along the radius. R is no a spatial coordinate inside the horizon. Similarly, T becomes a spatial coordinate inside. (Remember - coordinates are just labels for things. The distinction between time and space is not, so what matters is the relative signs of the coordinates in the metric.)

(If the +--- convention is used, the coordinate with the + sign is the time direction, regardless of what the labels are. This convention is typically used by particle physicists. If the convention being used is -+++, the minus sign designates the time direction. This is used mainly by gravitational theorists.)

The singularity of the big-bang is observable, since the distant objects used to measure the rate of expansion are in our past.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 143
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/9/2012 5:15:04 AM

To justify it we must theorise about things we can't see and things we can't detect.


No "justification" needed. The basis of the BBT still remains recessional velocities of galaxies. Dark energy and dark matter are observed effects. The specific mechanism is not yet known.


Anyone here have any knowledge about the plasma cosmology theory? Has it been debunked?


I watched a video about it. It's an hour and a half I'll never get back! But yeah, it's debunked. There is absolutely NO observational evidence beyond anecdotes to support it. One of its failed "observations:" Comets are actually "attracting" material to them. Which is demonstrably WRONG!
 3rdmediumfish
Joined: 1/22/2015
Msg: 144
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong? YES
Posted: 1/31/2015 8:51:26 PM
"How can something that totally surrounds you in all directions possibly implode away from you in all directions?"
 Trynottobecreepy
Joined: 10/26/2014
Msg: 145
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong? YES
Posted: 2/9/2015 2:21:31 PM
Actually, the Big Bang Theory isn't a theory at all; it's a hypothesis.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong? YES
Posted: 2/9/2015 8:59:59 PM
^^^ you forgot peer reviewed. A scientific theory is also peer reviewed. The average persons use of the word theory is more akin to the meaning of the word hypothesis, but even a hypothesis is not usually so sloppy as the common use of the word theory. Terrible indeed.
 Demidar
Joined: 10/22/2014
Msg: 147
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong? YES
Posted: 2/10/2015 8:53:51 PM
Been reading some theories that the universe has always been here , no big bang .
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 148
view profile
History
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong? YES
Posted: 2/11/2015 6:43:14 AM
He may be referring to this?

I gather so far this is a set of equations and a press release. Pesky theoretical physicists and mathematicians.


No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
Feb 09, 2015
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html



Fun with equations -


Cosmology from quantum potential

Ahmed Farag Alia,
Saurya Dasc,

Abstract
It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe.

The generally accepted view of our universe (homogeneous, isotropic, spatially flat, obeying general relativity, and currently consisting of about 72% Dark Energy, likely in the form of a cosmological constant Λ , about 23% Dark Matter, and the rest observable matter) implies its small acceleration, as inferred from Type IA supernova observations, CMBR data and baryon acoustic oscillations [1], [2], [3] and [4]. However, quite a few things remain to be better understood, e.g.,

(i) the smallness of Λ , about 10−12310−123 in Planck units (‘the smallness problem’),
(ii) the approximate equality of vacuum and matter density in the current epoch (‘the coincidence problem’),
(iii) the apparent extreme fine-tuning required in the early universe, to have a spatially flat universe in the current epoch (‘the flatness problem’),
(iv) the true nature of dark matter, and
(v) the beginning of our universe, or the so-called big-bang.

In this article, we show that one may be able to get a better understanding of some of the above problems by studying the quantum correction terms in the second order Friedmann equation, derived from the quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE), which in turn was obtained by replacing geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories [5] (this formulation of quantum mechanics gives rise to identical predictions as those of ordinary quantum mechanics). In particular, while one correction term can be interpretable as dark energy, with the right density, and providing a possible explanation of the coincidence problem, the other term can be interpreted as a radiation term in the early universe, preventing the formation of a big-bang type singularity, and predicting an infinite age of our universe.
One naturally assumes a quantum mechanical description of the fluid or condensate filling our universe, described by a wavefunction ψ=ReiSψ=ReiS (assumed normalizable and single valued. Some well-studied examples in curved spacetimes, including in cosmology, include Refs. [6], [7], [8] and [9]. R(xα),S(xa)=real functionsR(xα),S(xa)=real functions), associated with the four-velocity field ua=(ħ/m)∂aSua=(ħ/m)∂aS, and expansion θ=Tr(ua;b)=habua;bθ=Tr(ua;b)=habua;b, hab=gab−uaubhab=gab−uaub (with vanishing shear and twist, for simplicity. The constant ϵ1=1/6ϵ1=1/6 for conformally invariant scalar fluid, but left arbitrary here).
We will see later in this article that a condensate composed of gravitons with a tiny mass is a natural candidate for this fluid.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 149
view profile
History
Is the Big Bang Theory wrong? YES
Posted: 4/23/2015 12:24:20 PM
Always thought these pics were compelling for the imagination. I offer them with a yahoo article (first link) to accompany them for today's fun science moment.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2015/04/23/401643807/a-god-that-could-be-real-in-the-scientific-universe

http://www.blastr.com/2014-9-9/our-galactic-neighborhood-just-got-whole-lot-bigger

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/fig_tab/435572a_F1.html
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >