Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Joe L. Ogan on 13/12/2009 17:38:12
-
How was the Universe actually formed? Is the Big Bang Theory still considered effective in the Scientific World? I would like to get the current thinking on this topic. Thanks. Joe L. Ogan
-
Nobody knows how the universe was formed initially or even if it has a first moment. What is called the "big bang" theory doesn't actually go back that far, as reputable cosmology texts will note.
-
Well, Can we say that the Universe was formed by Nature? Or is this just substituting Nature for God? In my education, I have learned to question everything?
Some things one can come to accept. i.e. 1+1=2 But, even then, one must be alert to question that concept when something else comes along that is more feasible. Does Present Science have any idea how the Universe was formed? Must we reserve judgment until something comes along that most of us can agree about? Just trying to get an idea that will satisfy my appetite for knowledge? Thanks for your information. Joe L. Ogan
-
I just don't think that more than a very few scientist think that they have anythiong other than speculation right now.
-
I just don't think that more than a very few scientist think that they have anythiong other than speculation right now.
Absolutely PhysB.......As we continue to learn more, the theories will continue to change. I doubt we will, any time soon, have the complete picture. And as soon as we do, new information will cause us to change our views. Read my signature, it's a quote from the very intelligent man; John Stuart Mill
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
-
This was the fundamental problem that Fred Hoyle was trying to address with his "continuous Creation" hypothesis that has now been thoroughly disproved.
Any true "Theory of Everything" must explain the origin if the observed "Big Bang" and show the true continuity if the multiverse. The multiverse is an indefinitely nested and extended set of individual observable universes. that includes our own observable universe within it.
It also has to show how the fundamental laws of physics originate and how they might have come to a rather fine tuned set of values.
This probably means that our observable part of the universe will during its existence create other universes in a scale invariant process like a fractal.
The most obvious source for this is the formation of black holes within our observable universe. the insides of these are "seeded" with material from our universe and could in theory form the start of a whole new universe that has evolved from our universe.
I can suggest how all this could happen but this goes beyond the remit of this section and I propose to post it shortly in the new theories area of these pages as "new thinking on the route to a theory of everything"
-
Great. I shall look forward to your posting. Thanks. Joe L. Ogan
-
I think that it is impossible to entirely disprove the idea that there might be continual creation going on out there. Hoyle's research partners are still publishing actual work in Quasi-Steady State Cosmology. (For example, see the Hoyle, Narlkiar and Burbidge book that was reprinted in 2005. I have a copy at work but not here. Narlikar and Vishwakarma published papers about the supernova measurements and the background radiation experiments, but they got little traction out of them.) There are good reasons to reject their theories but not 100% reasons. Maybe just >99% reasons. One reason is that they just can't match the incredible evidence that is being produced for the standard cosmological model through the combination of sources.
One should not that Hoyle and his partners have did come to accept that the universe does evolve over time. Only a few of them still believe in anomalous redshift physics.
-
How universe is formed ?? I am itching my head since last 15 minutes... [???] I think now in current situation we will agree as big bang..
Because God will not permit his child's to know everything [;D]
-
Redshift physics is not something to believe, it has been observed, it is a fact, so how come some people not "believe" in that?
They tend to believe that at least some of the redshift that we observe is due to some as yet unknown physical laws that cause the redshift, not the known laws.