Big Bang Theory: Can It Really Explain the Universe?

[cybersysop]

I agree that the Earth is not expanding as the Earth would most likely not exist when the universe's environment was in a right kind of state for that. I question the gravity cluster theory for galaxies as there is not much of anything to support that. I understand the balloon example, but as the center of the balloon is not on the outside but the inside as Hubbell's view point seems to think we are at or close the center. While I am not sure were we are at in the universe as to the relationship to the location of the BB, it would seem clear there is of course a center of beginning of the BB. So, it would seem that dark matter does interact with gravity but does dark matter need gravity? Most likely not, With only dark matter hot/cold may have created/caused the slit or pinhole were as the single axiom accounts for the following; " there is no well-supported model describing the action prior to 10−15 seconds or so. Apparently a new unified theory of quantum gravitation is needed" Because the background radiation is smooth because of the dark matter showed that photons were in fact coming from directions that had not been in contact with each other before should mean very few things and one is there was something there before the BB which traveled through the dark matter outside our universe and dark matter does have properties as you pointed out as one is that it interacts with gravity, but that does not mean it needs gravity and can therefore exist without it. How long were these photons traveling for and were did they come from. Logically an area outside of of our universe and maybe dark matter only? That is why I feel the universe is expanding (not molecules particles themselves) into something like dark matter and being diluted with dark matter from outside of the big bang as I cannot find out the cause for dark matter except that I speculate it was there prior to the BB and perhaps the first matter. I am not sure how anti matter fits into this whole picture. But is seems to me to be fairly easy to visualize my thoughts as to how they could have happened and don't contradict any accepted theory I have read. Please, I am looking for constructive criticism and want someone to take these thoughts of mine apart.
I am trying to learn and appreciate any opinion and education efforts very much. Thank you in advance!

 

[StandardsGuy]

The universe is and has been expanding since the BB, so what is it expanding into, and is our own Earth expanding as well?
SInce we have a pretty good model of the BB, why can't we reverse engineer the expansion to find the center with an contraction model? (i.e. Hubbell)
How come the BB does not account for dark mater being produced?

Is the expansion irrelevant according to time (if a metric is expanding is time slowing down)? How does the expansion effect time?

Some seem to have no problem with an infinite thing expanding. I do. I find that totally illogical. At least one version of the BBT starts the universe as a singularity which by definiton has no size at all. To me the expansion proves that the universe is finite. There is no data with sufficient accuracy to determine whether the Earth is expanding.

IMO the model of the BBT isn't that good, and dark matter is just a theory within a theory; it is not known to exist. The universe has no center in any dimesion that we know of. In the balloon analogy there is a center in another dimension. Whether the universe is like that is pure speculation.

No one knows the relationship, if any, of the expansion and time.

 

[cybersysop]

This was my thought on the time issue, since the universe is exponentially expanding and exponentially accelerating, at some point if not already, time will slow down. [i.e. the example given if a spaceship was to orbit around the event horizon of a black hole, the spacemen would return to the Earth much younger then the people on the Earth because of their speed (1/2 the speed of light as an example) in which they were traveling would slow their time and age more slowly]. So how fast does the expanding/ accelerating universe have to go before an equilibrium is reached? The point in which time slows enough to show almost no acceleration of the expansion.
Several BBT starts with a singularity so I understand your point of view especially the finite . One part I am having troubles with is the balloon example of expansion. There is something on the outside of the balloon and there is a center inside the balloon. To say the BB is finite is logical in the context that the particles are finite or the space/metric is finite. But, how can anyone say it will stop expanding and why? Where are the photons given in the example above coming from? It is illogical to say that there is nothing outside of the known or unknown universe, I think. I think Hawking said; "it wasn't economical to put an edge on the universe but it is there" seems to me to be an answer of convenience for a theory and less than speculation. No disrespect was meant to Mr Hawking as I respect him immensely and he is a great man indeed with a great brain, much greater than I can even fathom. Whether or not there is an edge or not, how can we say our universe is the only one because of the BBT finite or not. Thats the part I have trouble with. I agree there is most likely the BB as there is allot of evidence that shows this but I can't get my brian around nothing else existed prior to the BB or outside of our universe. That is illogical, I think. So I again, think the BB happened for sure, but there logically has to be an existence before the BB and something outside of our universe. I cannot find a accepted theory that says our universe is the only one or that's all there is before or after the BB or what and why caused it. I understand what many say is the future evolution and end result of the universe using the BBT, but again that theory seems to me to be assuming there is nothing outside of our universe or before the BB or no other universes to change that result. Cant get my brain around that "nothing" thing. Someone heelp me with this please. I would be eternally grateful and am being very sincere with my interest in this subject.
Perhaps I am not understanding the current definition of the term universe?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Some seem to have no problem with an infinite thing expanding. I do. I find that totally illogical. At least one version of the BBT starts the universe as a singularity which by definiton has no size at all. To me the expansion proves that the universe is finite. There is no data with sufficient accuracy to determine whether the Earth is expanding.

IMO the model of the BBT isn't that good, and dark matter is just a theory within a theory; it is not known to exist. The universe has no center in any dimesion that we know of. In the balloon analogy there is a center in another dimension. Whether the universe is like that is pure speculation.

No one knows the relationship, if any, of the expansion and time.

It can be mathematically shown (don't ask me how the maths is far beyond me). On the small scale (particle physics usually) the mathematics tells us something is there before we see it and then we go looking for it. Thats the whole reason we built the LHC to look for some theoretical particles.

So mathematically there is a force that is driving the expansion, we know this must be true for it to be accelerating. They called that 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', we are now looking for something which has the properties the the maths define.

Admittedly in the grand scheme of things BBT is horribly incomplete. However it's also the very best model we have for the universe at the moment. There is no other model that comes even remotely close to explaining the current state of the universe.


It's like being given a jigsaw of a sillhouette of something, as we get more peices we can start to build the outline of the object then we can set about finding something that fits it.

 

[Fredrik]

The universe is and has been expanding since the BB, so what is it expanding into, and is our own Earth expanding as well?

The big bang was not an explosion somewhere in space. I know that's what the name suggests, but it's more wrong than thinking that there's buffalo meat in Buffalo wings. These two posts might make things a little bit clearer: 1, 2. The http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03 that was mentioned earlier in this thread is even better, but it looks like you will have to pay for it.

Earth is not expanding, and neither is the solar system or the galaxy. At least not significantly. If they're expanding, the rate of expansion is many orders of magnitude smaller than the cosmological expansion.

SInce we have a pretty good model of the BB, why can't we reverse engineer the expansion to find the center with an contraction model? (i.e. Hubbell)

It doesn't have a center. See the posts I linked to above, and the comment about the balloon analogy below.

I understand the balloon example, but as the center of the balloon is not on the outside but the inside as Hubbell's view point seems to think we are at or close the center.

This shows that you have not understood the balloon analogy. The universe is the surface of the balloon, not the interior. Where is the center of the surface?

" there is no well-supported model describing the action prior to 10−15 seconds or so. Apparently a new unified theory of quantum gravitation is needed"

What this means is just that while GR+SM (GR=general relativity, SM=the standard model of particle physics) does make predictions about those times, they're not likely to be very accurate. That shouldn't be too shocking. All theories that have been found so far has a limited range of applicability. What's remarkable here is that the range of these theories is so unbelievably freaking huge, not that it doesn't cover everything.

I am trying to learn and appreciate any opinion and education efforts very much. Thank you in advance!

This is the right attitude. I hope you'll learn a lot here. But you also need to consider the fact that the forum rules don't allow "personal theories" and "overly speculative posts". You're speculating far more than the rules allow.

 

[cybersysop]

It can be mathematically shown (don't ask me how the maths is far beyond me). On the small scale (particle physics usually) the mathematics tells us something is there before we see it and then we go looking for it. Thats the whole reason we built the LHC to look for some theoretical particles.

So mathematically there is a force that is driving the expansion, we know this must be true for it to be accelerating. They called that 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', we are now looking for something which has the properties the the maths define..

Its interesting you mention the LHC. I went to an older article to try to find some answers to a few things. Did you see this article? http://www.xscience.info/news/exper...iques/fastest-waves-ever-photographed-55.html Waves at almost the speed of light. WOW, In the article the device shown, allows for certain studies and applications to be used in an economical fashion. The LHC is so expensive/big and there are only a few in the world, they (MIT?) seem to think a desktop machine can be made from what I understand. It would be cool to play with one of those. We live in a very exciting time, I wonder if Moore's Law will decide how much we can find out about the BBT.
Thank you for the response!

 

[diogenesNY]

Just to reinforce... the SciAm article Misconceptions about the Big Bang by Lineweaver and Davis is probably the best possible starting point to get a good digested sense of what Big Bang actually expresses as a model/theory. Although it appears that one cannot directly link to it without a solicitation of payment, the full text of the article _can_ be read by clicking on the link at the end of the wiki article.

So, to put it in terms of a list of instructions:

1. go to the wikipedia page for Big Bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

2. Scroll down to almost the bottom of the page. There will be a bold, large type faced heading that reads 'Further reading'

3. The eighth (8th) entry on the list is a click-able link to the Misconceptions about the Big Bang article by Lineweaver and Davis. This link will get you the full text of the article. I do not know why it is that this works but still you cannot directly link to it and get the full text.

4. Click on this link for an interesting and enlightening article. (The following link, entitled 'The First Few Microseconds' is also recommended. It is from SciAm May 2006).

diogenesNY

The big bang was not an explosion somewhere in space. I know that's what the name suggests, but it's more wrong than thinking that there's buffalo meat in Buffalo wings. These two posts might make things a little bit clearer: 1, 2. The http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03 that was mentioned earlier in this thread is even better, but it looks like you will have to pay for it.

P.S. The no Buffalo Meat in Buffalo wings analogy is phenomenal! I expect to make a lot of use of it in the future.

 

[StandardsGuy]

It is illogical to say that there is nothing outside of the known or unknown universe, I think. I think Hawking said; "it wasn't economical to put an edge on the universe but it is there"

How can we say our universe is the only one because of the BBT finite or not. Thats the part I have trouble with.

Hawking is famous for the "no boundaries rule" which I know little about, but I doubt he said that edge thing.

The "new" inflationary version of the BBT in the book The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth (1997) says that A region of false vacuum will grow forever: once inflation begins, it never stops, producing an infinite number of “pocket” universes at an ever-increasing rate. We would have no communication with any of them and wouldn't know of their existence. Another book to consider is The runaway universe by Donald Goldsmith (2000). The idea of multiple universes is sometimes called the Many Worlds Interpretation. In unexplained-mysteries.com it says a poll of "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" found 58% believing in the MWI.

Keep on reading and learning. It is fascinating stuff.

 

[cybersysop]

Hawking is famous for the "no boundaries rule" which I know little about, but I doubt he said that edge thing.

From the Physics forum itself re an interview with Mr Hawking! We have the proof there is an edge, TIME? If the universe is approx 13.7 billion years old then that is the edge by definition, I would think, time that is.. The edge of time as we know it?

Hawking: It obviously matters because if there is an edge, somebody has to decide what should happen at the edge. You would really have to invoke God.
Why does that follow?
Hawking: If you like, it would be a tautology. You could define God as the edge of the universe, as the agent who was responsible for setting all this in motion.
You are invoking God because we need an explanatory principle for the edge.
Hawking: Yes, if you want a complete theory, then we would have to know what happens at the edge. Otherwise, we cannot solve the equations.
In the sense that you're using God, it's rather like a principle that's synonymous with the laws of the universe. It doesn 't imply a moral being.
Hawking: There would not be a connection with morality.
You're using it as a logical and causal principle.
Hawking: Yes.
You said if there is an edge, then we 'd have to invoke God. Do you think there is evidence for an edge?
Hawking: At the moment there's not much evidence either way. It seems that we can explain the present state of the universe on the assumption that there wasn't any edge.
You said earlier that, in so far as the possibility of an edge of the universe is concerned, it could go either way, and you correlated the edge with a God or some sort God-like principle.
Hawking: It's very difficult to prove that there isn't any edge, but if we could show that we can explain everything in the universe on the hypothesis that there is no edge. I think that would be a much more natural and economical theory.

 

[cybersysop]

Hey standard guy,

Thanks for the books you mentioned, I will read them and I appreciate you posting their names so Thank you. In context to the BBT by itself, if the Universe is approx. 13.7 billion years old is that not the edge currently? I am not being argumentative, this seems very logical to me. I appreciate you input very much. The "it is there" part of the statement was mine and I should have made that more clear,
Sorry! My bad.