1
New Theories / How much does the Big Bang explain?
« on: 09/12/2016 21:49:19 »
My New improved theory of how it all started:
About 14 billion years ago the universe started and there was a bang. The rest, well, don't know. The bang was part of everything that happened in the year dot but what is cause and what is effect is up for grabs.
Big bang Theory VS New improved version:
1) The big bang created the universe's matter VS don't know.
CERN banged an awful lot of particles together and there is one clear result. They had no trouble converting energy into matter but always exactly as much matter as anti-matter. What we have is matter without the anti-matter. So what's the odds - a theory that the evidence denies or something else even if we don't know what?
Now I am not going to pretend that I have the true answer here but to show that another can be made, how about this? Perhaps we got it the wrong way round. I'm thinking that maybe the universe started sort of charged with whatever it is that matter has and anti-matter has the opposite. That would force matter to crystallize out with release of however much energy the big bang needed. Maybe it dropped out in the simplest form of neutrons, decayed to protons plus electrons and then, if the smaller universe was a tight enough fit, some fused to helium. That would warm things up.
Would that produce enough heat to explain the CMB? Well there ain't much energy left in it now. It depends on how much the universe has cooled since the energy was released. So how much cooling? Well, easy enough to just fudge the model to fit.
2) The big bang caused the universe to expand VS don't know.
The big bang doesn't explain the Hubble red shift. It can only explain part of it. That's why dark energy has to be added to explain the rest. And what is dark energy? - it's a very clear don't know. So why not just a don't know doing it all rather than a don't know plus a bang? I know what Occam would say.
Let's be clear on something. That a bang moves the contents of the universe around is obvious but that isn't the big bang theory. The theory requires the universe itself to be moved by an explosion of it's contents. Not self-evident. No problem creating a model of the universe where it won't.
About 14 billion years ago the universe started and there was a bang. The rest, well, don't know. The bang was part of everything that happened in the year dot but what is cause and what is effect is up for grabs.
Big bang Theory VS New improved version:
1) The big bang created the universe's matter VS don't know.
CERN banged an awful lot of particles together and there is one clear result. They had no trouble converting energy into matter but always exactly as much matter as anti-matter. What we have is matter without the anti-matter. So what's the odds - a theory that the evidence denies or something else even if we don't know what?
Now I am not going to pretend that I have the true answer here but to show that another can be made, how about this? Perhaps we got it the wrong way round. I'm thinking that maybe the universe started sort of charged with whatever it is that matter has and anti-matter has the opposite. That would force matter to crystallize out with release of however much energy the big bang needed. Maybe it dropped out in the simplest form of neutrons, decayed to protons plus electrons and then, if the smaller universe was a tight enough fit, some fused to helium. That would warm things up.
Would that produce enough heat to explain the CMB? Well there ain't much energy left in it now. It depends on how much the universe has cooled since the energy was released. So how much cooling? Well, easy enough to just fudge the model to fit.
2) The big bang caused the universe to expand VS don't know.
The big bang doesn't explain the Hubble red shift. It can only explain part of it. That's why dark energy has to be added to explain the rest. And what is dark energy? - it's a very clear don't know. So why not just a don't know doing it all rather than a don't know plus a bang? I know what Occam would say.
Let's be clear on something. That a bang moves the contents of the universe around is obvious but that isn't the big bang theory. The theory requires the universe itself to be moved by an explosion of it's contents. Not self-evident. No problem creating a model of the universe where it won't.