
#1
Jul2408, 08:37 PM

P: 1

Can anyone tell where I can find the mathematical proof of the Big Bang theory and by whom, I'm interest in the calculation only.
If you have a scientific paper available with you please send it to me(yousifhot@hotmail.com) I really need it. Thanks a lot, 



#2
Jul2408, 11:01 PM

P: 290

Hello and welcome to PF yousless!
There is no one equation for the standard BB model of the universe. I am afraid you are going to have to do much more reading than you might have expected Just to get you started: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2005 What exactly are looking for? How in depth? The theory is not one that can be written out in a single equation, it is based on many models and observations and equations. Think of it more as like evolution is a theory, but one could not write down the single mechanism of change over time. Just in case this is more of what you need: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/cos_home.html http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/ These are all good general introductions to how we currently view the whole picture of cosmology, which natural follows from a big bang event. Good luck! 



#3
Jul2408, 11:04 PM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,800

EDIT: Looks like Robert already answered this. If I had known I wouldn't have posted. Thanks Robert. Good links!
Anyway this is what I wrote earlier, attempting to respond. I am not sure what you mean by Big Bang theory. that is a name that caught on in the popular media and I think it often is used to refer to the standard cosmology model, which is some math equations (Friedmann equations) What you do with the Friedmann equations model is you plug in some values of the parameters and see how it fits the data. The test is how well you can make a single choice of like 3 main numbers and then have it predict all the data in sight. All kinds of datagalaxy counts and redshifts, supernovas, the temperature map of the microwave backgroundall sorts of relatively old and relatively new stuff! The fit is amazing. so the 3 or so main numbers (the parameters) can be determined with remarkable precision and reliability. This is a big change since 1998. Before 1998 there were various competing guesses as to how to model the universe and what parameters to use. Now the data is a lot better. Better instruments helped. anyway the way the model is confirmed is by fitting to a huge body of observations. ================= once you have the Friedmann model you can just look at it and it is obvious that, since it is always expanding for all our past history, if you follow it back in time you get to a condition of very high density and temperature I wouldn't call that a theory. It is more a little piece. It is just an automatic feature of the model that fits all the data over all time in the best way we know, so far. It's how the model that fits begins telling the whole story. someday when we get a better model (if we do) maybe it will have a slightly different beginning. To me, for what it's worth, the beginning is not the most important feature. What impresses me is how well it covers the whole story. Actually I think the details right around the beginning may change as the model is quantized, so people won't describe right at the start with the same words, probably won't say bang, may say bounce or something else. But that is just a little detail. We will still have a beautiful fit to the whole of the history that we can see. ================== I'm still sort of wondering what you mean by "the Big Bang theory" and what it is you would like a proof of. would you like to describe a bit more ================= 



#4
Jul2508, 12:53 PM

P: 44

Mathematical proof of the Big Bang Theory 



#5
Jul2508, 02:37 PM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,800

doppler formula will work as an approximation at short distance though so you are part right. ======================= Yousif, I think it is pretty clear that you are not in need of a mathematical proof. Math proofs are deductions from axioms. Science is different from mathematics. In science things are based on empirical evidenceobservation, measurement, experiment. what you need is observational EVIDENCE that in very early universe there was a time of extreme high density and temperature. 



#6
Jul2508, 03:46 PM

Mentor
P: 14,454





#7
Jul2508, 04:01 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 8,961

The famous joke about a bunch of scientists observing a cow from a train. Look says the astonomer  all cows in America are black No says the physicist  there are SOME black cows in America. Then the mathematician says  there exists at least one cow which is black on one side. (And finally the computer scientist says  look at the moomoos !) 



#8
Jul2508, 04:36 PM

P: 290





#9
Jul2508, 04:47 PM

P: 44





#10
Jul2508, 06:30 PM

Mentor
P: 21,999

The problem is with your claim that the redshiftspeed/distance corellation is purely an assumption. It isn't.
edit: It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from. 



#11
Jul2608, 06:32 AM

P: 44

My doubts are based on a fact that anything that moves in the universe, statistically, since there are exceptions called sling effect, loses its kinetic energy (the effect known as dynamical friction: see Pioneer 'anmaly' eqaul almost exactly the cosmolgical redshift) so since the laws of physics are universal it has to apply also to photons and if Pioneers can have such redshift why not the photons? Once, just for fun, I calculated, such dynamical friction for photons and I got almost the same results as there are for Pioneers. So in my opinion the redshift/speed corelation is just an assumption and also a false one. Unfortunately I'm not neither an astronomer nor a physics professor to whom people would listen so I'm doomed to keeping my opinions for myself (occasionally sharing them with interested people through the internet; though not many interested people are there). 



#12
Jul2608, 07:20 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,005

"Pioneer 'anmaly' eqaul almost exactly the cosmolgical redshift" In this you assumed that what is reported as a residual unmodelled acceleration has no possible explanation other than {whatever your idea is}. What if, tomorrow, a new paper comes out which reports more detailed, more extensive modelling and reduces the Pioneer anomaly to only 10% of "the cosmolgical redshift"? What if, next week, a new paper comes out which reports an extensive study of other space probes and finds no "Pioneer anomaly" at all? You see the problem? 



#13
Jul2608, 10:00 AM

P: 44

As I said above "I calculated, such dynamical friction for photons and I got almost the same results as there are for Pioneers". However I used GR and the friction turned out to be proportional only to the curvature of space. So it is surely "anomalous" in Newtonian gravitation where the space is flat. To reveal the way I did calculations is unfortunately against the rules of the forum and I don't want to be trown out from this forum for promoting "original research", so I rather wait until astronomers start using GR and find the same thing (I was told that I may use IR section of this forum for revealing such calculations but unfortunately any attempt to get there produces consistently Database error message and the address for reporting the problem comes out blank :)). 



#14
Jul2608, 11:24 AM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,800

http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146 I congratulate you for looking into the possibility of displaying your calculations in the IR forum. It seems like a good fit. Don't be put off by the "database error" message. I have encountered that dozens of time at PF, but never in IR. It normally goes away after an hour or so. System problems like that are not confined to IR, and they are infrequent. So I do encourage you to try IR forum again and I expect you will not encounter system problems. (if you do, let us knowI will try and see if I experience them also) 



#15
Jul2808, 08:04 AM

P: 44





#16
Jul2908, 07:14 PM

P: 724

I do not know much about cosmology or even basic physics, so please pardon my ignorance. But don't the solutions to the Einstein field equations say that space must either by contracting or expanding? Although this is not proof of the big bang theory, it supports the empirical evidence that space is expanding, no?




#17
Jul2908, 07:28 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 8,961

Measurements that the universe is expanding supports the premise that Einstein's field equations are correct in being a good description of the universe. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Mathematical proof  Math & Science Software  5  
Is there any proof that big bang actually happened ?  Cosmology  15  
Mathematical Proof  Math & Science Software  6  
Tricky Mathematical Proof  Math & Science Software  15  
Mathematical Proof???  Math & Science Software  10 