Register to reply

The big bang help!

by Mr. Pullen
Tags: bang
Share this thread:
xxChrisxx
#19
May17-10, 04:20 AM
P: 2,048
Quote Quote by blank.black View Post
I do not understand why the rules would not let someone put forth their own theory if they are willing to take full responsibility of doing so. Maybe by that theory, we all might learn something new, it might help expand our views and ideas, it might give us a different perspective towards the way things work. Can someone at least give me one good reason why one cannot put forth a theory?
As a rule only 'mainstream' theories, i.e. ones that are well founded amongst the scientific community are allowed. There are regualr discussions about new theories that go against the current popular one, but no unsubstantiated claims are allowed.

It's basically to stop crackpots from saying anything they want under the guise of 'it's my theory'. You can discuss your own theories if they are backed up by evidence in Independent research (I think thats the subforum) if you want.


So for example: if you are a scientist conducting new research into a field, and have a hypothesis that you are currently testing out. Thats fine, as it's being conducted in a scientific manner.

Someone coming on who is essentially a layman, who isn't really doing any research and is just saying "Hey, what is this is the case" isn't. As it's not a claim with substance, it means that you spend more time arguing about some speculative crap than real science.
blank.black
#20
May17-10, 04:24 AM
P: 34
Quote Quote by xxChrisxx View Post
As a rule only 'mainstream' theories, i.e. ones that are well founded amongst the scientific community are allowed. There are regualr discussions about new theories that go against the current popular one, but no unsubstantiated claims are allowed.

It's basically to stop crackpots from saying anything they want under the guise of 'it's my theory'. You can discuss your own theories if they are backed up by evidence in Independent research (I think thats the subforum) if you want.
Ok. I see what you mean. Thanks xxChrisxx.
russ_watters
#21
May17-10, 05:29 AM
Mentor
P: 22,300
In the past we had a forum dedicated to peoples' personal theories, but it became overrun with crackpots and overwhealmed the moderating staff.
cybersysop
#22
May17-10, 10:02 AM
P: 28
I see the problem with placing theories here. I do wish there was a place in the forum one could work as a team to put some in a proper context. An example would be applying network science to sub atomic particles and the development of that network created by those relationships to the big bang and the beginning of our universe theories. When I saw for the first time, the map of the universe as it had been assembled by the Hubbell team (NASA), The end resulting structure look to me Like a giant network that had similarities to some networks at an molecular level too. As an expamle; "the big bangs origin being a sort of plant seed programmed to grow into a tree or a bush which is a network. So since there are many trees in the forest, many seeds, plants, organisms and such (an eco system), a single seed that started the universe (as maybe part of an entire eco system of dimensions, time space, energies and so forth) the big bang seems possible to a common person like myself. Many answers may even lie at a sub atomic level and the stored energy in atoms if we can decode their programming or charge I think. We can now spin electrons to send remote signals, so I have recently read. How is that part of the bigger network of atoms, molecules all the way up to our solar system, galaxy, universe. What is in between an electron, the proton and neutron. That could be very fun to work on I think. Who knows, it may even tie everything together in a tidy package. WIth so many principles, one has to have allot of input and direction. I hope this is clear how it could relate to the big bang, I tried to avoid rambling.
Fredrik
#23
May17-10, 11:36 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Fredrik's Avatar
P: 9,414
Quote Quote by xxChrisxx View Post
I'd just like to take a marginally different approach to this. I wouldn't consider the earth is round to be a theory as it's not a model with any predictive powers, also we know it is becuase we've seen it is.
That last detail certainly doesn't make it any less appropriate to call it a theory. I would agree that it doesn't have a lot of predictive power, but it certainly has some. It predicts that the Earth viewed from the moon isn't going to look like a cube, and that if you travel along the surface in one and the same direction, you will eventually end up where you started. (Some would prefer the term "postdict" since it's something that's been done already, but I prefer to just define "predictions" as statements that are implied by the axioms that define the theory).

The main problem with the statement that the Earth is round is that the word "round" is ambiguous. (It means "approximately spherical", so it's definitely possible for two different people to disagree about whether something is round or not). This has two interesting consequences: a) It makes the predictions (somewhat) ambiguous too. b) It enables us to identify the statement as correct. That's kind of funny actually. If we use the word "spherical", the theory is well-defined and "wrong" (but still a pretty good theory), and if we use the word "round", the claim is "correct" but doesn't quite meet the requirements of a theory.

An extension of this argument is the reason why theories can't be labeled "right" or "wrong" in a meaningful way. They're all "wrong". Some are just less wrong than others, and the ones that are the least wrong are the ones we consider good theories.

I chose not to include this discussion in my previous post because I thought it would just confuse the OP. I have spent a lot of time thinking about these things over the past few years and I could go on about them for a long time.

By the way, "The Earth is flat" is a theory too according to my definitions.

Quote Quote by xxChrisxx View Post
Just a different take on the nomenclature.
Yes, I'm not going to say that my terminology is right and all others wrong. But I could certainly write a pretty long essay about why I think my definitions should be preferred.
diogenesNY
#24
May17-10, 11:57 AM
P: 31
I hope that you all will forgive me quoting myself, but the downward spiral of this conversation has simply reinforced what I believe to be a long overdue need for some sort of 'sticky'ed' Big Bang FAQ or list of links or some-such.... simply to provide a baseline of just what Big Bang Theory (to use the vulgate) does and does not express, as it seems that a very large number of people here ask questions about it, or take issue with it while not really having a grasp on its basic premises.

I am pleased to discover that there _is_ a publicly available copy (on the SciAm website) of the complete Lineweaver/Davis article _Misconceptions about the Big Bang_ and I humbly submit the link to it along with one or two other links that I, as a hopefully informed layman, think might be instructive and informative. That said, I really think that some attention by more informed minds in improving and enshrining such a FAQ/link list would be very helpful and a most worthwhile resource for the Physicsforums community.

Misconceptions about the Big Bang By Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ut-the-2005-03

The First Few Microseconds By Michael Riordan and William A. Zajc

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...second-2006-05

Wikipedia article on Big Bang - Looks okay, perhaps a more qualified individual could take a look and offer some PF seal of approval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

diogenesNY




Quote Quote by diogenesNY View Post
Perhaps a good starting point would be an outline of what the Big Bang theory _does_ purport to describe. After all, it is necessarily problematic to agree or disagree with a model or theory if you don't start off knowing what it actually intends to express.

Marcus had a link in his signature connecting to to an excellent(!) article from Scientific American called Misconception About the Big Bang. Unfortunately this link is no longer valid, and Scientific American charges a considerable amount of money for a direct download of this article from their site.

Now, keeping in mind that my purpose in directing the OP to such an article is not necessarily to be persuasive in terms of the validity of Big Bang (however, I think it goes a long way in that direction, personally), but rather to simply lay out what this model does and does not express.

With this in mind, perhaps suitably expert individuals might suggest some links to pages that accurately and lucidly express just what Big Bang does and doesn't purport to describe.

diogenesNY
jackmell
#25
May17-10, 12:51 PM
P: 1,666
Quote Quote by diogenesNY View Post
Hi. Those links only give an abstract followed by a request to either subscribe or buy the issue (been keeping up with this thread just haven't said anything) :).
cybersysop
#26
May17-10, 12:59 PM
P: 28
I agree a data base would be very helpful. I have read three separate theory on the big bang, all were considered more correct so go figure. What I enjoy about this forum is it is easy to spot someone who teaches. I on the other hand use what is taught to build things. Now, I am working on something were I feel this forum has allot to offer plus I like the subject and principles in general. The forum has truly nice people that seem to want to teach and contribute. So I can contribute as well, With no offense meant to anyone a theory is not worth much if it does not have an application. I also agree that common definitions are very important so that all are speaking the same language. The point is well made the the big bang has an accepted theory that should be read. Understanding that in relation to the other principles is extremely exciting. Physics is really cool, and calculi with multiple or single axioms and so forth as is also infinite geometry. What I also like about this forum is the physics network here. The big bang theory has some very important exciting applications that need exploring. SO while I do not know the math/formulas behind the big bang theories, I do understand the importance and overall concept of this. Like the gamma rays/waves/particles that may have proved that there was truly evidence of this existing. It is my experience that I try not to be to close to the forest so that I can see the trees and ecosystems. Thank you for the post on wiki as I have read that already as well as many of the subjects involved in this post. That is some good advice as well. So, was the big bang the first true single axiom? Was this the origin of diffraction, photons, time, gravity and on a phased transition. A collision of dimensions or a dimensional static spark by two close passing ones? The plank scale? Conserved momentum? The one constant is that the big bang on all accounts is, it is history and well into the past, or is it also a glimpse into what the future will be and can we forecast how the universe will evolve?
I thank you for the articles to refer and think that is a great idea to post them for review.
cybersysop
#27
May17-10, 01:03 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by jackmell View Post
Hi. Those links only give an abstract followed by a request to either subscribe or buy the issue (been keeping up with this thread just haven't said anything) :).
Thank you, That was very kind of you to post those. I will click on those tonight.
Thanks again.
diogenesNY
#28
May17-10, 01:08 PM
P: 31
Okay, I think I may have a solution to the not full article showing up problem: I shall sorta quote my previous post with new (hopefully working) links. --

[edit]... after a few false starts, I think I have working links..... we shall see... now second one isnt working.... still didling it...

I am very confused..... sometimes one or the other article links, sometimes it doesnt, In any case, both articles in their full form are linked to at the tail end of the wiki page.... check them out there, if the below links do not work.... again, maybe some PF admin could secure permission to host them and a few more good primers here locally on the PF site.
-----------------------------------

I hope that you all will forgive me quoting myself, but the downward spiral of this conversation has simply reinforced what I believe to be a long overdue need for some sort of 'sticky'ed' Big Bang FAQ or list of links or some-such.... simply to provide a baseline of just what Big Bang Theory (to use the vulgate) does and does not express, as it seems that a very large number of people here ask questions about it, or take issue with it while not really having a grasp on its basic premises.

I am pleased to discover that there _is_ a publicly available copy (on the SciAm website) of the complete Lineweaver/Davis article _Misconceptions about the Big Bang_ and I humbly submit the link to it along with one or two other links that I, as a hopefully informed layman, think might be instructive and informative. That said, I really think that some attention by more informed minds in improving and enshrining such a FAQ/link list would be very helpful and a most worthwhile resource for the Physicsforums community.

Misconceptions about the Big Bang By Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...2383414B7F0147

The First Few Microseconds By Michael Riordan and William A. Zajc

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...7F83414B7F014D

Wikipedia article on Big Bang - Looks okay, perhaps a more qualified individual could take a look and offer some PF seal of approval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

diogenesNY


Quote Quote by diogenesNY View Post
That is odd..... that is what sometimes (usually) happens when I try to retrieve a linked article from SciAm.... however when I did this today.... and I found those articles linked from the wiki site.... I got the full article. I don't know why. I am not at an academic institution, just my office which I am confident does not have an online subscription. I will investigate.

FWIW, the first article, Lineweaver and Davis, used to be hosted on a site at Princeton as well, and was accessible. Maybe some PF admin could request permission to host these articles locally.

diogenesNY
cybersysop
#29
May17-10, 01:10 PM
P: 28
Thank you diogenesNY,
I will review that ASAP.
Thanks again. That was nice of you!!
StandardsGuy
#30
May17-10, 06:40 PM
P: 61
Evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution is what explains it.

Remember this: If it makes predictions, it's a theory
.

Part of evolution is a fact, but much of it is conjecture. So tell me, what does the theory of evolution predict Man will evolve into?
StandardsGuy
#31
May17-10, 06:48 PM
P: 61
Quote Quote by xxChrisxx View Post
As a rule only 'mainstream' theories, i.e. ones that are well founded amongst the scientific community are allowed. There are regualr discussions about new theories that go against the current popular one, but no unsubstantiated claims are allowed.
So we can't discuss the Steady State theory including why it was "ruled out"?
phizo
#32
May17-10, 07:57 PM
P: 51
A good reason for not posting your theory is so that nobody can steal it
xxChrisxx
#33
May18-10, 02:25 AM
P: 2,048
Quote Quote by StandardsGuy View Post
So we can't discuss the Steady State theory including why it was "ruled out"?
Steady state is an "obsolete" theory but it's perfectly allowed as real evidence was discussed by the scientific community, it had merit and consensus for quite a while. So this makes it relatively simple to moderate, as it's known exactly what the theory stated and the evidence to back it up.

Saying that I have a theory that the universe was made by patchwork elephants becuase you don't see any, so they must be hiding, which is a dead giveaway innit. Would not be allowed, becuase it's not even remotely credible. There is no real theory, it's just speculation that's not had any evidence even waved at it.

Basically the rule is, you can't just make **** up.
cybersysop
#34
May18-10, 02:46 PM
P: 28
It was nice reading the posted articles and general overview of the BBT again, but I still have the same questions. 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 cant 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?
What happen to the Deuterium? Dark matter?
wiki quote; "Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the Universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen H."

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

quote from wiki; "As noted above, 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 to break this barrier. Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the Universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics."
How can this be? Does this mean the beginning is not known? Why cant this be resolved with reverse engineering of the BBT model?

Part of the BB wiki quote; "The background radiation is exceptionally smooth, which presented a problem in that conventional expansion would mean that photons coming from opposite directions in the sky were coming from regions that had never been in contact with each other."

SO I still have many questions and proffer an answer.

My Summation,
The BBT did happen. However, the universe expanded into Dark matter (which was present before the BB and while it seems by observation and maybe measurement a metric is expanding, The BB was preceded by dark matter (or an alternate universe) and the known universe is being diluted by dark mater causing it to expand. What is it expanding into? Dark matter that properties actually smooth background radiation! What caused the BB? A slit in the fabric of Dark matter causing the BB from a single axiom. This helps answer the shape of the universe.
Well thats my thoughts for what its worth. Any constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for the articles re re review, I enjoyed them very much.
Cyosis
#35
May18-10, 03:44 PM
HW Helper
P: 1,495
It was nice reading the posted articles and general overview of the BBT again, but I still have the same questions. 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 cant 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?
What happen to the Deuterium? Dark matter?
wiki quote; "Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the Universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen H."
Why does the universe have to expand into anything?

No earth is not expanding, because on small scales gravity wins over dark energy. In fact dark energy dominates gravity only on very large scales, read cluster, super cluster scales.

You assume the universe was finite during the very beginning. This need not be the case. How would you find the center of something that is infinitely large? Even in the case of a finite universe you can use the balloon analogy to see that a finite universe doesn't mean there is a center. Imagine the universe as the surface of a balloon. Once you put air into the balloon it starts to expand. Can you tell me where the center on the surface of the balloon is located?

My Summation,
The BBT did happen. However, the universe expanded into Dark matter (which was present before the BB and while it seems by observation and maybe measurement a metric is expanding, The BB was preceded by dark matter (or an alternate universe) and the known universe is being diluted by dark mater causing it to expand. What is it expanding into? Dark matter that properties actually smooth background radiation! What caused the BB? A slit in the fabric of Dark matter causing the BB from a single axiom. This helps answer the shape of the universe.
Well thats my thoughts for what its worth. Any constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for the articles re re review, I enjoyed them very much.
I honestly have no idea how you could come to these conclusions. For example dark matter gravitates just like ordinary matter, in fact dark matter counteracts the expansion of the universe. You on the other hand conclude that dark matter accelerates expansion.

Early on all matter and photons were in thermal equilibrium. After roughly 380,000 years the universe had expanded enough and therefore cooled down enough for photons to decouple from matter. These are the photons we see as CMB and they all seem to have the same temperature, because they started out with the same temperature a long time ago.
cybersysop
#36
May18-10, 05:51 PM
P: 28
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 ballon 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 dont 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!!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Big bang, schmig bang: everything's just shrinking Astronomy & Astrophysics 43
Big bang and small bang black holes Cosmology 5
Can we see the big bang? Cosmology 12
Big Bang really necessary? General Physics 87
Round One: Big Bang vs. Little Bang... Astronomy & Astrophysics 4