Can the "big bang" be wrong?


by Relena
Tags: big bang
Relena
Relena is offline
#1
Jun24-08, 07:41 AM
P: 53
The bing bang theory simply states that there was a point at which the time limit of all frames tends to zero ,then it exploded (I think) and the universe was created. then it is supposed that the total summation of forces , energy and matter distributions (just all physical quantities) be perfectly symmetric .

So why isn't the universe perfectly symmetric? What's wrong with my assumption?

And what would happen if it was proved that the bing bang was a mistake?
Phys.Org News Partner Space news on Phys.org
Astronomical forensics uncover planetary disks in Hubble archive
Cosmic illusion revealed: Gravitational lens magnifies supernova
Kazakh satellite to be launched into orbit
nicksauce
nicksauce is offline
#2
Jun24-08, 08:04 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
nicksauce's Avatar
P: 1,276
Quote Quote by Relena View Post
The bing bang theory simply states that there was a point at which the time limit of all frames tends to zero ,then it exploded (I think)
There was no explosion.

Quote Quote by Relena View Post
and the universe was created. then it is supposed that the total summation of forces , energy and matter distributions (just all physical quantities) be perfectly symmetric .

So why isn't the universe perfectly symmetric? What's wrong with my assumption?
There are plenty of asymmetries. Decoupling of the forces, Matter/Anti-Matter asymmetry (One billion and one matter particles for every billion anti-matter particles), energy density (Variations in about one part in a hundred thousand after inflation), time asymmetry. Why do you have the idea that it has to be perfectly symmetric?

Quote Quote by Relena View Post
And what would happen if it was proved that the bing bang was a mistake?
Do you mean that there is a slight mistake with the current model? Then the change is incorporated and the model is improved. Or do you mean that the big-bang didn't occur and there was no start to the universe 13.7 billion years ago from a hot dense point? Well this is sort of like asking "What would happen if evolution was proved wrong?" or "What would happen if the periodicity in chemistry was proved wrong?". In any case, the respective fields would be completely turned over, but the the theories are so well founded that this is hard for me to imagine.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#3
Jun24-08, 08:38 AM
Mentor
P: 22,010
Well, the universe may not be perfectly symmetrical (homogeneous is a better word), but it is homogeneous to an extremely high degree - about 99.999%. Here's a recent thread on that subject: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=238736

As to your question in the title: the Big Bang can certainly be wrong, but with so much evidence for it, the likelyhood of it being completely wrong is pretty small. But it is very likely that some specific parts of the theory are wrong.

Chronos
Chronos is offline
#4
Jun27-08, 02:19 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,186

Can the "big bang" be wrong?


Of course the big bang theory could be wrong. It's merely the best fit to date. You need only propose a model that better fits observational evidence.
mgmirkin
mgmirkin is offline
#5
Jun28-08, 04:09 AM
P: 1
Quote Quote by nicksauce View Post
Do you mean that there is a slight mistake with the current model? Then the change is incorporated and the model is improved. Or do you mean that the big-bang didn't occur and there was no start to the universe 13.7 billion years ago from a hot dense point? Well this is sort of like asking "What would happen if evolution was proved wrong?" or "What would happen if the periodicity in chemistry was proved wrong?". In any case, the respective fields would be completely turned over, but the the theories are so well founded that this is hard for me to imagine.
And, what if the universe is non-homogenous at the largest scales and displays a fractal matter distribution? Can you imagine that?

Is it as much a death blow to the Big Bang as pundits claim, if the latest results are upheld? If so, what next? Talk about a 'crisis in cosmology'... ;o]

"Umm, yeah, our model just blew up," *blank look* "we've got nothing..."

Kidding, mostly. Except that it's such a serious question.

<unsuitable links removed by cristo>
Chronos
Chronos is offline
#6
Jun29-08, 01:14 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,186
You have culled nothing of importance, merely hints of discordant observations. If you have a better model in mind, please share.
Nereid
Nereid is offline
#7
Jun29-08, 08:50 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,005
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
You have culled nothing of importance, merely hints of discordant observations. If you have a better model in mind, please share.
Worse, mgmirkin's sources are not even papers or conference proceedings!

You may wish to take some time to understand what PF is, mgmirkin, and how it works; 'science by press release' or 'science by cherry-picking popsci magazine articles' doesn't quite cut it.

ETA: worse squared ... mgmirkin, you do realise, don't you, that pulsars models and how individual stars form (for example) have essentially no connection with LCDM cosmological models?
robheus
robheus is offline
#8
Jul5-08, 05:04 PM
P: 143
Quote Quote by nicksauce View Post
Or do you mean that the big-bang didn't occur and there was no start to the universe 13.7 billion years ago from a hot dense point?
With all respect but the universe did not "start" 13.7 billion year ago, which does not mean that the BB theory is wrong, only your description of it. However small, the (observable) universe was never the size of a point.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Do black holes "evaporate" or go "bang"? General Astronomy 31
LQG in the mainstream press "Glimpse of Time Before Big Bang Possible" Beyond the Standard Model 1
String theory: "Not Even Wrong" according to Peter Woit Beyond the Standard Model 24
Big-Bang Theory Modification "Real or Not" Cosmology 6