Register to reply

Is Big Bang true?

by jinchuriki300
Tags: bang
Share this thread:
jinchuriki300
#1
Jun9-11, 02:55 PM
P: 9
Hey guys, I'm deeply interested in physics and I want to be a theoretical physicist, i'm only freshman in high school, but I'm in 2nd quarter calculus. I've a question that want to ask. I've read many article about physics especially SR and GR, could it be that redshift that we see from moving stars are just decrease in energy of light, if the energy of light fainted just right, the result is red shift, another problem for Big Bang is the horizon problem, i believe that light is fastest velocity in universe so there is no way that inflation could be real. Dark matter, there are no evidence for dark matter, and how do we know it's expanding. In my opinion, even if everything is moving away from us, could it be that galaxy is not expanding could it be that matters are moving away but not the universe. Scientists today have found galaxy filament, the total mass could be add up to the missing 99% of the universe. So, is Big Bang true or wrong?
Phys.Org News Partner Space news on Phys.org
Amazing raw Cassini images from this week
Europe launches two navigation satellites
SpaceX gets 10-year tax exemption for Texas site
mathman
#2
Jun9-11, 03:35 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 6,059
Your note has many errors. I suggest you read up more on the material.
another problem for Big Bang is the horizon problem, i believe that light is fastest velocity in universe so there is no way that inflation could be real.
Light speed us upper limit on motion, but not on the expansion of space.
Dark matter, there are no evidence for dark matter, and how do we know it's expanding.
There is plenty of evidence for dark matter (holding galaxies together). The last phrase (expanding) seems irrelevant to the rest of the sentence.

Scientists today have found galaxy filament, the total mass could be add up to the missing 99% of the universe
.
Where did you get this idea?
DaveC426913
#3
Jun9-11, 03:52 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Big Bang is true.

We are pretty certain of events all the way down to microseconds after the BB event. There are some tweaks, some questions and some competitors to the theory, true, but it's pretty much a done deal.

jinchuriki300
#4
Jun9-11, 06:47 PM
P: 9
Is Big Bang true?

Read this contradiction I get from some website and tell what you think
False Assumptions?
The first problem involves the three predictions that the big bang theory makes, that the universe is expanding, that the cosmic background radiation exists and that the abundances of light elements are correct. The idea that the universe is expanding is based upon an assumption that may be false. This assumption is that the observed red-shift is a cosmological effect and is not an anomoly. Photographs taken by Halton Arp suggest the possibility that some objects which appear to be physically connected show widely divergent red-shifts. If it can be shown that the red-shifts are not cosmological, this would undermine Hubbles law, and the big bang theory. Likewise, the cosmic background radiation could be a general condition of the universe, not at all related to any big bang event. It's an example of the false logic mentioned above.
But these problems are not fatal. The really serious problems directly contradict the big bang theory with observational data. If the big bang occurred 20 billion years ago, it seems logical to assume that nothing in the universe can be older than this. Yet, mammoth clusters of galaxies have been discovered that are billions of light years across. Such clusters would take hundreds of billions of years to form, far longer than the universe has existed. A second part of the problem is that the universe is presumed to have started out smooth and homogeneous, like the background radiation. Recent observations have shown the actual universe to be profoundly discontinuous and clumpy. There are vast areas where there is nothing, and enormous ribbons of matter stretch out over the universe like strings of christmas lights. Another part of the problem is the alleged "dark matter". For the big bang theory to be correct, 99% of the universe must be made up of this invisible and unobserved form of matter. Yet, there is no evidence that this "dark matter" actually exists at all.
When cosmologists thought that the universe was smooth and homogeneous on its largest scales, they were happy to find that the background radiation matched perfectly to a "black body" curve. But when it became clearer that this smoothness did not really exist, it became necessary to find bumps in the background radiation, tiny non-conformities that could explain how the universe got from its smooth, homogeneous beginnings to a clumpy, discontinous present. Data from the COBE probe in 1989 seemed to confirm the perfect smoothness of the background radiation, although later interpretations by George Smoot claim to have found the necessary bumps. The picture above is from COBE data that purports to show the anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation
jinchuriki300
#5
Jun9-11, 06:56 PM
P: 9
I believe that the universe is static, and 1 day i'll try to prove it, even Einstein has some fallacy in this theory. He believes that universe is non-Euclidean geometry and you have to use complex math to solve but you could use a high school math to solve something like Mercury's perihelion, bending of light, etc...and space could be Euclidean geometry. Big Bang has become a religious belief of science and no matter how people find errors in the theory. Scientific community will defend it.
bcrowell
#6
Jun9-11, 07:01 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
bcrowell's Avatar
P: 5,597
Quote Quote by jinchuriki300 View Post
The idea that the universe is expanding is based upon an assumption that may be false. This assumption is that the observed red-shift is a cosmological effect and is not an anomoly. Photographs taken by Halton Arp suggest the possibility that some objects which appear to be physically connected show widely divergent red-shifts.
There is a virtually complete consensus among astronomers that Arp's interpretation is wrong.

Quote Quote by jinchuriki300 View Post
If it can be shown that the red-shifts are not cosmological, this would undermine Hubbles law, and the big bang theory.
If red-shifts are not cosmological, then we would have to overturn quantum mechanics and general relativity. There is no evidence to support such a radical change in the known laws of physics.

Quote Quote by jinchuriki300 View Post
The really serious problems directly contradict the big bang theory with observational data. If the big bang occurred 20 billion years ago, it seems logical to assume that nothing in the universe can be older than this. Yet, mammoth clusters of galaxies have been discovered that are billions of light years across. Such clusters would take hundreds of billions of years to form, far longer than the universe has existed.
This is out of date. The "you can't be older than your ma" problem has been resolved.

Quote Quote by jinchuriki300 View Post
A second part of the problem is that the universe is presumed to have started out smooth and homogeneous, like the background radiation. Recent observations have shown the actual universe to be profoundly discontinuous and clumpy. There are vast areas where there is nothing, and enormous ribbons of matter stretch out over the universe like strings of christmas lights.
The author of this doesn't understand the subject. Nobody ever assumed that the universe had to be exactly homogeneous. It is very nearly homogeneous on large scales, and this is why we can, for many purposes, make homogeneous models.

Quote Quote by jinchuriki300 View Post
When cosmologists thought that the universe was smooth and homogeneous on its largest scales, they were happy to find that the background radiation matched perfectly to a "black body" curve. But when it became clearer that this smoothness did not really exist, it became necessary to find bumps in the background radiation, tiny non-conformities that could explain how the universe got from its smooth, homogeneous beginnings to a clumpy, discontinous present. Data from the COBE probe in 1989 seemed to confirm the perfect smoothness of the background radiation, although later interpretations by George Smoot claim to have found the necessary bumps. The picture above is from COBE data that purports to show the anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation
This is more of the same error.

Quote Quote by jinchuriki300 View Post
Another part of the problem is the alleged "dark matter". For the big bang theory to be correct, 99% of the universe must be made up of this invisible and unobserved form of matter. Yet, there is no evidence that this "dark matter" actually exists at all.
Efforts are underway to detect dark matter directly. Two such efforts are claiming positive results: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26861/ So "no evidence" is completely incorrect, although there is still a lot of uncertainty at this stage, and the positive results could turn out to be wrong.

The big bang model is consistent with all the known data. It makes many detailed predictions, e.g., about abundances of nuclei, that are verified by experiment.

There is no other model that is consistent with all the known data. If you can come up with one, that would be very cool -- knock yourself out!
bcrowell
#7
Jun9-11, 07:05 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
bcrowell's Avatar
P: 5,597
Quote Quote by jinchuriki300 View Post
I believe that the universe is static, and 1 day i'll try to prove it, even Einstein has some fallacy in this theory. He believes that universe is non-Euclidean geometry and you have to use complex math to solve but you could use a high school math to solve something like Mercury's perihelion, bending of light, etc...and space could be Euclidean geometry.
There is a vast amount of evidence in favor of general relativity: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2006-3/ , The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, Clifford M. Will

Quote Quote by jinchuriki300 View Post
Big Bang has become a religious belief of science and no matter how people find errors in the theory. Scientific community will defend it.
This statement would be more convincing if you could point out one such error. The supposed errors listed in #4 are not errors. The scientific community entertained the steady-state theory on an equal footing with the big bang models up until observation proved that the steady state was not viable.
bcrowell
#8
Jun9-11, 07:07 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
bcrowell's Avatar
P: 5,597
FAQ: What is the evidence on Big Bang versus steady state cosmologies?

Let's consider this question first under the assumption that general relativity and standard quantum mechanics are valid. (GR has been verified to high precision by a wide varirty of empirical tests.[Will]) After that we'll see what happens if this assumption is relaxed.

We have a variety of evidence that the universe's state has been changing over time:

The Hubble law is observed. If standard quantum mechanics is valid, then these redshifts cannot be intrinsic to the emitting body. If general relativity is valid, then these redshifts are to be explained by the expansion of the universe. The Hubble expansion requires that the matter in the universe become more dilute over time. If general relativity is valid, then mass-energy is locally conserved, so there is no possibility of spontaneously creating more matter to "fill in the gaps."

When we view light from the deep sky that has been traveling through space for billions of years, we observe a universe that looks different from today's. For example, quasars were common in the early universe but are uncommon today.

Most dramatically, we observe the cosmic microwave background radiation. The universe full of hot, dense gas that emitted the CMB is clearly nothing like today's universe.

Not only has the universe changed over time, but there is a great deal of evidence that it has a finite age:

In the present-day universe, stars use up deuterium nuclei, but there are no known processes that could replenish their supply. We therefore expect that the abundance of deuterium in the universe should decrease over time. If the universe had existed for an infinite time, we would expect that all its deuterium would have been lost, and yet we observe that deuterium does exist in stars and in the interstellar medium.

The second law of thermodynamics predicts that any system should approach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, and yet our universe is very far from thermal equilibrium, as evidenced by the fact that our sun is hotter than interstellar space, or by the existence of functioning heat engines such as your body or an automobile engine.

The combination of all these observations clearly establishes that static cosmological models are not consistent with observation, provided that general relativity and quantum mechanics are valid.

Around 1948, Hoyle and others created a steady-state cosmological model by relaxing general relativity's prohibition on the spontaneous creation of matter. A detailed account of the evidence against this model, and later variations, is given by Wright. The model was falsified in the 1950's by counts of faint radio sources. It is also inconsistent with observed abundances of helium and with the discovery of the CMB in 1965. An oscillating variant called Quasi-Steady State Cosmology was proposed by Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar in 1993, but it was inconsistent with preexisting observations. They later produced a modification of the model, which is also inconsistent with observation.

Will, "The confrontation between general relativity and experiment," http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2006-3/
Wright, "Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models," http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
Drakkith
#9
Jun9-11, 08:13 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,844
Quote Quote by jinchuriki300 View Post
I believe that the universe is static, and 1 day i'll try to prove it, even Einstein has some fallacy in this theory. He believes that universe is non-Euclidean geometry and you have to use complex math to solve but you could use a high school math to solve something like Mercury's perihelion, bending of light, etc...and space could be Euclidean geometry. Big Bang has become a religious belief of science and no matter how people find errors in the theory. Scientific community will defend it.
Why would a freshman in high school assume that tens of thousands of people, if not more, are incorrect? It looks to me like you only looked at the very basics of the big bang, then saw something that said it was wrong, and never bothered to look at the actual evidence or explanations about it. I implore you to explore both sides before making a decision in the future. Find something that says the big bang is incorrect? Find out why and see what current science says about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptical. It is a very good quality for not only science, but for life in general. But don't mistake skepticism for outright denial.
Sup_Principia
#10
Jun9-11, 11:11 PM
P: 17
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
Why would a freshman in high school assume that tens of thousands of people, if not more, are incorrect? It looks to me like you only looked at the very basics of the big bang, then saw something that said it was wrong, and never bothered to look at the actual evidence or explanations about it. I implore you to explore both sides before making a decision in the future. Find something that says the big bang is incorrect? Find out why and see what current science says about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptical. It is a very good quality for not only science, but for life in general. But don't mistake skepticism for outright denial.

Well stated Drakkith!!
Shenstar
#11
Jun10-11, 12:19 AM
P: 29
If you want to prove you'll have to find a better explanation for CMB and redshift objects quasars. Maybe if you said we are at the centre of the universe it might solve a few problems. Apparently some data from CMB suggests that. And the highbredshift objects would just mean they are moving away from us. Maybe if we were in a hubble bubble. I still don't know if it could be argued for a static state universe though. Although I think the sun at the centre of the universe is the only other option where you could use some of the data to prove that.
DavidMcC
#12
Jun10-11, 05:15 AM
P: 101
Quote Quote by Shenstar View Post
If you want to prove you'll have to find a better explanation for CMB and redshift objects quasars. Maybe if you said we are at the centre of the universe it might solve a few problems. Apparently some data from CMB suggests that.
Don't you mean the "centre of the observable universe"? If there are astronomers in distant galaxies, they would also see a uniform CMB that seemed to show that they were at the "centre of the universe", wouldn't they?
Chalnoth
#13
Jun10-11, 06:17 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,800
Quote Quote by Shenstar View Post
If you want to prove you'll have to find a better explanation for CMB and redshift objects quasars. Maybe if you said we are at the centre of the universe it might solve a few problems. Apparently some data from CMB suggests that. And the highbredshift objects would just mean they are moving away from us. Maybe if we were in a hubble bubble. I still don't know if it could be argued for a static state universe though. Although I think the sun at the centre of the universe is the only other option where you could use some of the data to prove that.
Er, what? No, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that we are at any sort of center. Some have proposed something like this to explain the accelerated expansion, but it just doesn't work when examined in detail.
WannabeNewton
#14
Jun10-11, 03:53 PM
C. Spirit
Sci Advisor
Thanks
WannabeNewton's Avatar
P: 5,599
Quote Quote by DavidMcC View Post
Don't you mean the "centre of the observable universe"? If there are astronomers in distant galaxies, they would also see a uniform CMB that seemed to show that they were at the "centre of the universe", wouldn't they?
Yes, any observer can claim to be at the center as there is no absolute center.
Ken G
#15
Jun10-11, 05:25 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,080
Another point that should be made, jinchuriki3000, is that most of your information is extremely out of date, by decades. Nothing new has come from Arp's arguments in several decades, and your reference to COBE almost sounds like you've never heard of WMAP. Essentially your entire post could have been, and similar things were, written 30 years ago. Astronomy has come quite a ways since then-- you need to update yourself or you risk getting stuck in the past. They say "old dogs can't learn new tricks", but you are way too young to get stuck in such antiquated thinking about the Big Bang. Had you been 75 years old I could see where you were coming from, but a high school student-- that's a real pity.

Here is some more modern information you should google:
1) WMAP.
2) the Bullet Cluster.
3) type Ia supernovae (to correct your claim that 99% of the universe has to be dark matter-- it's more like 30% of the energy), though I doubt you are going to like dark energy much.
4) supermassive black holes
That should get you started back on the road to modern astronomy.
gvgomez
#16
Sep16-11, 12:38 PM
P: 3
I have always found Arp's ideas fairly convincing. This does not mean I also agrees his points of view on gravity, which are very exotic. But now we even have a quasar which has a relatively nearby galaxy in the background...

[Crackpot link removed]

Who can doubt that at least some of the redshift is intrinsic?
Chalnoth
#17
Sep16-11, 12:46 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,800
Quote Quote by gvgomez View Post
I have always found Arp's ideas fairly convincing.
That's unfortunate. Because he is completely and utterly wrong, and basically just a crackpot these days who doesn't bother to pay attention to the evidence any longer. His claims have been roundly shown to be false, and yet he still promotes them. It's nonsensical.

Quote Quote by gvgomez View Post
Who can doubt that at least some of the redshift is intrinsic?
Anybody that knows anything at all about physics.
gvgomez
#18
Sep18-11, 05:42 AM
P: 3
Then please explain the well known hubble photo of a quasar with a galaxy in the background.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
If Big Crunch = True, then Reincarnation = True? Cosmology 18
The true, true stress-strain curve? General Engineering 3
Big bang, schmig bang: everything's just shrinking Astronomy & Astrophysics 43
True Time and True c Special & General Relativity 78
Big bang and small bang black holes Cosmology 5