The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: If the Big Bang Theory is wrong, how will we know unless someone questions it?  (Read 6168 times)

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
If the Big Bang Theory is wrong, how will we know unless someone questions it?  It appears to me that current Scientific Thinking is accepting of the Big Bang Theory.  Should Science close its' mind to a theory just because most have accepted it for various reasons?  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan


 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Even if nobody questions it, if it is wrong then at some point the model will fail to match the available observations.
 

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile

 I found rather interesting the cyclic universe proposed by Rodger Penrose.

 
feature=related
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
Even if nobody questions it, if it is wrong then at some point the model will fail to match the available observations.

Even when models fail to match observations we often keep the theory because there is either none better or no popular better one at least, i.e. standard model of physics vs singularities  :)
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
If the Big Bang Theory is wrong, how will we know unless someone questions it?

The reason the Big Bang Theory is so universally accepted is because it has been questioned, by generations of scientists, and has withstood the test of time.

Quote
It appears to me that current Scientific Thinking is accepting of the Big Bang Theory.

Of course it is, there is very strong evidence in support of it, and it even made predictions which were later observed to be exactly as they should be if the big bang theory was correct.

Quote
Should Science close its' mind to a theory just because most have accepted it for various reasons?

Do you mean close its mind to a new theory? Of course not. In science, when you're right you're right. If someone comes up with new evidence or another theory that better explains observations then that's the new theory.

You may have gotten some sort of impression of close-mindedness since new theories are always shot down, but that's just because they haven't been able to meet these requirements.

Well, not everyone accepts The Big Bang Theory, and of those who do, there's some disagreement about it.

I'd reckon 99% of physicists would. Which disagreements are you reffering to?

Quote
I lean toward The Big Bounce Theory (steady-state model) myself.

Why? The universe seems to be expanding too fast for it to ever stop and contract
 

Offline BASHA

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
 scientist's search the another theory which
 

Offline Robro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
The bigbang supporters are still trying to digest the spectrum of the most distant quasars which, by the way, cannot be made to match their model. 
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The bigbang supporters are still trying to digest the spectrum of the most distant quasars which, by the way, cannot be made to match their model. 
Says who?
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Whilst I agree totally that the big bang theory and observations of the universe are philosophically dissatisfying because any true theory of everything must be eternal.  the evidence is so strong that denying it is probably not a good idea.  To solve the problem we need some truly innovative thinking.  I have watched the Roger Penrose lectures with interest (unfortunately the one referenced has the critical bits in section 7 cut out but the original lecture is OK)  His Ideas are very good and relevant but I do not think that it is very likely that he has the correct solution.  I would favour a development of the Lee Smolin solution which see a Universe spawning many other universes in the form of black holes and have a model that shows how a collapsing black hole inside its event horizon can turn into a "big bang" that creates a large new universe similar to the one that it originated in.  the critical feature is that both space and time are "complex"  ie have real and imaginary parts and that as a black hole collapses space and time interchange i.e. space collapses to become time and time expands to become space.  The whole process is in effect fractal and an indefinitely large  and massive universe could live inside a stellar mass black hole without it being noticeable to our universe.  This is all being worked out and presented on my web pages and in the "new theories" area but at the moment is not really solid or accepted enough to be presented here.
 

Offline Robro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
The bigbang supporters are still trying to digest the spectrum of the most distant quasars which, by the way, cannot be made to match their model. 
Says who?
The timescale of quasar variability is widely expected to show the effects of time dilation. In this Letter, we analyze the Fourier power spectra of a large sample of quasar light curves to look for such an effect. We find that the timescale of quasar variation does not increase with redshift, as required by time dilation. Possible explanations of this result all conflict with widely held consensus in the scientific community...Hawkins

I pulled this from the web, it raises the question that if time dilation isn't present at the distance of these quasars, then the cause of redshift wouldn't be relativistic velocity, right? This may force us to rely on inflation alone. Szchazam! And the universe is there in it's pristine form. Those quazy quasars! Who do they think they are anyway?

And iron is also found way out there were the BB baby universe wasn't old enough to produce it, right? I don't want to try and suggest any theory here, because the thread could be moved or locked. So I think it is OK to just show reasons why the current popular theory is inconsistent with very important observations.

« Last Edit: 05/03/2010 05:36:50 by Robro »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The timescale of quasar variability is widely expected to show the effects of time dilation. In this Letter, we analyze the Fourier power spectra of a large sample of quasar light curves to look for such an effect. We find that the timescale of quasar variation does not increase with redshift, as required by time dilation. Possible explanations of this result all conflict with widely held consensus in the scientific community...Hawkins
You must mean this: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/553/2/L97/015104.text.html

This is a fine paper, but it is not the end-all and be-all in this field. For one thing, it is not clear that the measurement that Hawkins is taking is a measurement of quasar variability. For another thing, it is not certain how much of the variability that is measured is inherent in the quasar or physical systems near the quasar. Optical effects introduced by bodies between us and the quasars may introduce effects that are not correlated with redshift.
Quote
I pulled this from the web, it raises the question that if time dilation isn't present at the distance of these quasars, then the cause of redshift wouldn't be relativistic velocity, right? This may force us to rely on inflation alone. Szchazam! And the universe is there in it's pristine form. Those quazy quasars! Who do they think they are anyway?
I don't know what you mean that we might rely on inflation. There are certainly many observations of relativistic time dilation associated with redshift thanks to two different ways of measuring time with type Ia supernovae, so it is doubtful that there is not some time dilation in distant quasars.
Quote
And iron is also found way out there were the BB baby universe wasn't old enough to produce it, right? I don't want to try and suggest any theory here, because the thread will be moved or locked. So I think it is OK to just show reasons why the current popular theory is inconsistent with very important observations.
But it is also important to put these observations in their context. These small puzzles are not very significant next to the other evidence for the standard cosmological model.
 

Offline Robro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Yes, the inflation thing was just a little joke. And I see your point. We will have to wait till more data is available.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
scientist's search the another theory which

Well said.
 

Offline GlentoranMark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Its good to hear someone else who likes the Steady State theory like DiscoveryDave. I too feel uneasy with the Big Bang. I think the key to cosmology is Black Holes. All galaxies seem to be based around one. I also think the expansion will be answered when we discover what happens in the heart of galaxies.

Of course I have no scientific background only through reading and listening to programs like the Naked Scientist so I can't exactly call myself an expert in the field!
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
I never got the Big bang theory settled in my mind.
I could never imagine a void or vacumn suddenly having a particle or whatever to create the Big Bang. It sounds magic to me, possibly religious. 'He waved his hand and suddenly there was a big bang!'

I think it is very healthy to question as long as you have an open mind.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length