The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

what do you believe

The Big Bang
Constant Universe
Creationism
Other

Author Topic: is the big bang correct?  (Read 175834 times)

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #275 on: 28/06/2011 11:31:09 »
The big bang theory is just what it is, a theory.
In scientific terms, a theory is a hypothesis which has been extensively tested and holds true.  So saying something is "only a theory" is a non-argument on a science forum.

Quote
After all, with a bang that big which supposedly created the universe, nothing could have lived.
I'm not sure I understand this point - are you saying that a universe that started with a big bang must always be sterile?  I'm not sure I follow your logic there...

Quote
And calculating the earth's age as billions of years old is really kind of far fetched (sorry Math is not my strong suite).

If maths isn't your strong suite, fair enough.  But why then do you feel you can question the calculations that lead us to believe that the universe is 13-and-a-bit billion years old?  No other explaination even comes close.

Quote
With the big bang theory I'm sure evolution would follow and then mutation.

I don't think there's any causative relationship put forward - we know life has evolved regardless of what explanation we accept for the birth of the universe.
Quote
Albeit mutation is true, but evolution and mutation are two different things.
And no-one says they are the same.

Quote
Now back to the big bang. There is no big bang, if there was, we would be on our way to a singular linear path to the outer of whatever is beyond space.
The universe is expanding, in all directions, true.

Quote
No explosion could produce something that would make a planet or moon, to revolve another body.

If someone could simulate, lets say a an explosion, no matter how big or small and make a pebble revolve around a rock, and stay that way for even an hour. I would be a firm believer of the big bang.

It's not the big bang that gives rise to gravitational orbits.  It's the attraction of the particles to one another - again, this would happen regardless of the mechanism of universe birth.

Quote
For as far as I know, explosions or bangs throws thing away from the center of the explosion, instead of making them revolve around other things.
It may be easier not to think of it as an explosion.  We can see that at some point, 13.7 billion years before now, the universe was incredibly hot and dense.  It has since expanded - but not in the same way that a bomb would expand.  I think the name "big bang" can be very confusing for this reason.

All in all, I'm convinced that the evidence for the big bang is solid.  What we don't know is what caused it.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #276 on: 28/06/2011 14:24:33 »
It may be easier not to think of it as an explosion. 
It is certainly correct to say that the Big Bang theory is not about any explosions whatsoever.

More importantly, the common theory of cosmologists that goes by the Big Bang theory simply doesn't cover the beginning of the universe, except in a vague, very approximate way. The theory is about the history of the universe as far as we can investigate it and we have no way of investigating a first moment of the universe except in a very vague way. (See Peebles, Schramm, Turner and Kron, "The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology", Nature, V 352, 29 Aug 1991, pp 769-776 for a clear statement of this.)
Quote
I think the name "big bang" can be very confusing for this reason.
It was pretty much intended to be confusing, given that the name originates with a detractor of the theory, Fred Hoyle, in the service of a straw man argument against the theory.
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #277 on: 28/06/2011 14:39:27 »
I voted the big bang, because in physics, beginnings of things are very important. Having an eternal universe seems likely to be unable to resolve many fundamental questions which a beginning of time involves. However, there may be a loop hole. The universe can have a beginning, but not one which is defined under any real arrow of time (not that there are any arrows of time other than the psychological arrow) - Hawking presents his theory as a no boundary proposal on the universe, veiwing time vertically rather than horizontally. Imaginary time is set 90 degrees off real time, and by making this change, you can remove a big bang scenario. But as Hawking warns, this is a mathematical foundation where a beginning to a universe is still essential.
« Last Edit: 28/06/2011 14:43:14 by Mr. Data »
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #278 on: 29/06/2011 01:19:12 »
the voting system has been corrupted..
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #279 on: 29/06/2011 02:39:18 »
the voting system has been corrupted..

Could you please expand on that Dr J?
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #280 on: 29/06/2011 03:55:58 »
the voting system has been corrupted..

Could you please expand on that Dr J?

I'd rather not it was just a passing thought. Sorry Airthumbs.

But regarding the expanding part of the big bang theory, why is it that instead of continually expanding outwards, some parts of the universe are actually collapsing inward, or imploding in other words.
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #281 on: 29/06/2011 04:00:19 »
Also a passing thought, if it all started in the big bang, i might suggest that the focal point of the bang, let's say the center, must still be very visible or at least discernable, and it may in fact be still spewing out materials (Matters and Antimatters) which would contribute to the birth or continued rebirth of the universe.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #282 on: 29/06/2011 11:03:46 »
Dr J - there was no focal point.  Everywhere got bigger at a rapid rate
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #283 on: 30/06/2011 01:25:48 »
imatfaal, if conclusion of a big bang was due to the calculations made by the expanding universe, maybe calculations for a focal point could also be done, by calculating lets say the uhm, the edge? or like in explosions, the what do you call it? the Sonicboom, or yeah the sonicwave? calculate the distance of the farthest discernable evidence of a wave or whatever it is of the big bang on all directions, and maybe just maybe we could get the idea where the focal point is.
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #284 on: 30/06/2011 01:31:16 »
or, say I have this other example. What if the universe is like a balloon. Constantly expanding, you may imagine the rubber is the edge yet it is invisible since we are tiny particle of air in the balloon. but it could be observable due to the fact that some particles bounce back inside that balloon when they hit the rubber (boundary). You can calculate the focal or center point by calculating the distance from one point of the balloon to the other.

But here's another theory here, the particles of air that make the balloon expand is not actually from the focal or center point but from somewhere, lets say from the hole in the balloon where someone is blowing. It is also detectable.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #285 on: 30/06/2011 11:56:24 »
But regarding the expanding part of the big bang theory, why is it that instead of continually expanding outwards, some parts of the universe are actually collapsing inward, or imploding in other words.
The expansion of the universe is something controlled by gravity. Some regions of the universe, in the distant past, were slightly more dense than other regions. Some of these regions were just dense enough that the mass in that region exerted enough pull that that region collapsed in on itself. This is the origin of galaxies and galaxy clusters.
or, say I have this other example. What if the universe is like a balloon. Constantly expanding, you may imagine the rubber is the edge yet it is invisible since we are tiny particle of air in the balloon. but it could be observable due to the fact that some particles bounce back inside that balloon when they hit the rubber (boundary). You can calculate the focal or center point by calculating the distance from one point of the balloon to the other.
Sure, one could do this, but there are no phenomena that we have discovered that support such a model for our own universe.
Quote
But here's another theory here, the particles of air that make the balloon expand is not actually from the focal or center point but from somewhere, lets say from the hole in the balloon where someone is blowing. It is also detectable.
Exactly: such a theory should have certain predictions. We do not see any of the things that we would expect to see given such a theory. There is nothing that we see that we could use as the basis of determining a focal point or as a source of new matter, energy, or space.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #286 on: 05/07/2011 18:20:32 »
Testing Inflation Theory - WMAP - Just follow the links and read.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #287 on: 05/07/2011 20:06:34 »
Cosmology has long since left the three dimensional and strictly disciplined space occupied by our other sciences. Faith based ideas and beliefs have taken center stage in the theatrical speculations about our universe. The theory of the Big Bang is today the main actor on a Physics stage desperate to draw interest and sell tickets. In doing so Physics is becoming more and more of a shabbily disguised religion where God is simply replaced by a Big Bang. The similarities are appalling. The timescales are a bit different, down from a week to a few nanoseconds. Physics has simply reinvented creationism by replacing an imaginary human-like all-mighty with a similarly unlikely nuclear-like all-mighty. An infinitely small, infinitely dense Godtron who suddenly decided to unfold himself and become our universe.

In reality this is merely a testament to mankind's inability to understand beyond certain complexities. And in doing so, minds feverishly seeking to reach beyond their own comprehension floats out into hallucinogenic fantasies; Intoxicating fantasies that feel so good that they should be bottled and sold. But notice the chosen simplicity of the Big Bang, underscoring the frustration over perplexing and unconquered complexities while clearly illuminating the contrast between them and the level of simplicity where man functions. But worse, it is also a repetitive testament to man's willingness to take advantage of a false but fascinating fantasy, and feed it to fearful minds in need of light and comforting. So a new religion is born. In this case not born to profit from thunder and lightning, but born to profit the same.

Dipoles, Interactive Particle Posturing, Gravity and Strong Force!


 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #288 on: 06/07/2011 01:04:01 »
So what are you saying, Bengt? That we should never try to figure out where the Universe came from? That we should just accept that it "is" and leave it at that?
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #289 on: 06/07/2011 05:14:51 »
He who bothers not to explain Gravity and Strong Force is not qualified to speculate beyond the rocks on which we step.
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #290 on: 06/07/2011 06:22:22 »
That makes no sense. No one has to be "qualified" to speculate about anything. That's what makes speculation what it is.

Also, it's not like physicists aren't trying to figure out the origins of the fundamental forces.

I wouldn't even hardly call the Big Bang Theory a religion. The Big Bang Theory tells us nothing about how to live morally. It does not instruct us whether we should or should not worship anyone or anything. It does not tell us about life after death or the supernatural. It did not come from a prophet who had a vision. It all came from observation coupled with mathematics, deduction and speculation.

Don't get me wrong, I am religious, but I'm also aware that religion and science are two different things.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 06:24:00 by Supercryptid »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #291 on: 06/07/2011 13:57:17 »
People have been decrying the standard cosmological model for years as some sort of religious thing. It is an ironic activity: they never provide any evidence that it's a religion and they never provide any evidence for their own pet theory.

The only exception on the latter count is some of the work on quasi-steady state theory. However, the evidence is not very good.
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #292 on: 07/07/2011 08:52:30 »
So? Since the evidence is not very good. I assume the Big Bang theory is very much questionable. And will we ever leave it at that, a theory?
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #293 on: 09/07/2011 13:35:26 »
It would probably be more appropriate to call the Big Bang a Hypothesis since there it not enough observational or mathematical support to make it a plausible theory.
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #294 on: 09/07/2011 14:15:36 »
There are subtle, but interesting differences between a hypothesis and a theory.

http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htm

The big bang, as you will find, better suits the terminology of a theory.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #295 on: 09/07/2011 14:39:07 »
Your own citation:
A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.
There is absolutely no observational proof for the Big Bang hypothesis, just a handful of assumptions and hypotheses attempting to explain phenomena like Red Shift, which by the way can be explained much less dramatically.   
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #296 on: 09/07/2011 15:04:34 »
There is plenty observational proof. Big bang Nucleosynthesis is predicted, and observed with the correct values... red shift is not the only observation proof it has to stand on. There are arguably more proofs sustaining the big bang than what there is any other theory - hence why most accept the big bang theory... hence also why it cannot surely be a simple hypothesis which has no ground to stand on, and is not accepted by mainstream.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #297 on: 09/07/2011 17:02:48 »
Time will tell.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #298 on: 12/07/2011 03:28:19 »
Ok, Big Bang strikes me two ways. One, it is the theory that to me explains most of the things we see. Two, some of its postulates on how it came to be just phreaks me out :) like seeing someone state that photons 'lose energy' due to coming from more dense populations of space. That is not correct, as far as I know a photon does not lose any energy anywhere. Let us say that it annihilate at some position, and going from the definitions of weak measurements, defining photons as 'the same', we also might assume that we find 'it' to give us a different energy at different (4D)positions. Does that mean that this photon then is of different energies depending on positions, or does it mean that the red/blue shift (energy) is a relation to the one measuring. I would say a relation :) meaning it can't 'lose energy' except from the idea of an expansion in where it 'stretches out' defined as a wave.

And then we have those e-folds, and false vacuum :)
It may make some mathematical sense, but its presumptions sure hurt my head.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #299 on: 12/07/2011 03:56:52 »
False vacuum somehow expect space to inflate due to its negative pressure that then also fills it with 'energy' in that it can't lower it. 'The energy density remains constant and the total energy increases'.

That is a rather revolutionary statement to me. I must admire the ingenuity of it but it goes contrary to everything we see, and know, except possibly what we call the 'expansion'. In a universe governed by such a principle 'free energy' is no problem :) any more.
==

But it also goes back to what 'energy' is?

I don't know what it is, and I doubt those creating this idea know either. What I can see from both this notion, and the idea of a Higgs field, is that they treat 'space' as if it, although a vacuum classically, still can (on the very small plane) contain different 'energies', conceptually coexisting, in where only one of those 'planes' are available to us macroscopically. Which to me makes it very alike a idea of 'dimensions'. Or am I getting this wrong?
« Last Edit: 12/07/2011 04:04:58 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

is the big bang correct?
« Reply #299 on: 12/07/2011 03:56:52 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums