Register to reply

Proof of the Big Bang Theory

by Chaballa
Tags: bang, proof, theory
Share this thread:
Chaballa
#1
May21-10, 05:59 AM
P: 12
In my opinion if the Big Bang Theory is correct, it would have resulted in a really massive black hole, "Ultramassive Black Hole(UBH)".
Great Attractor could be the location of the "UBH", origin of the Big Bang.
This could explain the Dark flow and all galaxies should orbit around the "UBH".

I guess my idea is based on fact that very large explosion like Supernova creates a black hole, and the effects of the black holes and Supermassive black holes, etc. Does this make any sense?

Wiki
Black hole - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Supernova - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
Supermassive black hole - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
Great Attractor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
Dark flow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow
Phys.Org News Partner Space news on Phys.org
Lunar explorers will walk at higher speeds than thought
Amazon founder's firm to build new rocket engines
Space: The final frontier... open to the public
amarante
#2
May21-10, 06:55 AM
P: 36
The Big Bang was not an explosion, like a Supernova, it was an expansion of the space itself, not like a supernova explosion that is an expansion in space. So maybe if should be a BH caused by the Big Bang, certainly it was created differently as it happens after a SN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
cristo
#3
May21-10, 06:56 AM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,325
Quote Quote by Chaballa View Post
In my opinion if the Big Bang Theory is correct
It's not. Try searching in this and the cosmology forum and you will find a plethora of threads devoted to ironing out this misconception.

Fredrik
#4
May21-10, 08:50 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Fredrik's Avatar
P: 9,542
Proof of the Big Bang Theory

Quote Quote by cristo View Post
It's not. Try searching in this and the cosmology forum and you will find a plethora of threads devoted to ironing out this misconception.
There's probably nothing you could have said that would cause more confusion than that.

I would object to the idea that any theory can "be correct" (rather than just "make predictions that agree very well with experiments"), but I'm guessing that's not what you had in mind. Perhaps you meant that we need add something like inflation to the original big bang theory to account for some of the things we see.
Calimero
#5
May21-10, 08:58 AM
P: 256
Quote Quote by cristo View Post
It's not. Try searching in this and the cosmology forum and you will find a plethora of threads devoted to ironing out this misconception.
Also confused. What you had in mind?
Fredrik
#6
May21-10, 09:13 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Fredrik's Avatar
P: 9,542
Quote Quote by Chaballa View Post
In my opinion if the Big Bang Theory is correct, it would have resulted in a really massive black hole, "Ultramassive Black Hole(UBH)".
Great Attractor could be the location of the "UBH", origin of the Big Bang.
This could explain the Dark flow and all galaxies should orbit around the "UBH".

I guess my idea is based on fact that very large explosion like Supernova creates a black hole, and the effects of the black holes and Supermassive black holes, etc. Does this make any sense?
Fortunately physics isn't a matter of opinion, and as Amarante said, the big bang wasn't an explosion. I suggest that you follow diogenesNY's instructions here on how to get free access to a good article about the big bang. You should probably also take a look at the forum rules. There are rules against posting personal speculation here, so you should stick to asking questions about what the relevant theories actually say.
cristo
#7
May21-10, 09:23 AM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,325
Quote Quote by Fredrik View Post
There's probably nothing you could have said that would cause more confusion than that.
Haha.. I just re-read the thread now and confused myself!

I originally read the OP as

If my opinion of the Big Bang Theory is correct...
and hence answered

It's not. ...
I.e., the version of the "big bang theory" presented in the OP is not what is meant by the standard "big bang theory". I did not mean that the standard model of cosmology is incorrect. Sorry for confusing everyone!
Chaballa
#8
May21-10, 10:39 AM
P: 12
Quote Quote by amarante View Post
The Big Bang was not an explosion, like a Supernova, it was an expansion of the space itself, not like a supernova explosion that is an expansion in space. So maybe if should be a BH caused by the Big Bang, certainly it was created differently as it happens after a SN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
well i originally thought bout this idea about year or two ago while watching documentary about black hole, universe, big bang theory etc. I didnít realize wiki said Big Bang Theory wasnít an explosion cos according to all the documentaries iíve seen Big Bang started as a big explosion. (from old ones like "Understanding The Universe" to new ones like "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong")
Fredrik
#9
May21-10, 11:16 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Fredrik's Avatar
P: 9,542
Quote Quote by Chaballa View Post
I didn’t realize wiki said Big Bang Theory wasn’t an explosion cos according to all the documentaries i’ve seen Big Bang started as a big explosion. (from old ones like "Understanding The Universe" to new ones like "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong")
I guess most documentaries suck. A few months ago (maybe a year), I saw a really bad one about the LHC called "The big bang machine". It started like this: "In the beginning, there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. Then, there was an explosion". Terrible. Absolutely terrible.
Nabeshin
#10
May21-10, 02:06 PM
Sci Advisor
Nabeshin's Avatar
P: 2,193
Quote Quote by Fredrik View Post
I guess most documentaries suck. A few months ago (maybe a year), I saw a really bad one about the LHC called "The big bang machine". It started like this: "In the beginning, there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. Then, there was an explosion". Terrible. Absolutely terrible.
Yeah... this kind of crap always gets me. But it allows them to do two different things:
a) use flashy computer generated graphics, and
b) overly simplify something by analogy

I mean, it really doesn't have the same effect to explain that, "since we observe all galaxies moving away from all other galaxies, logically if we run the universe in reverse they must get closer and closer and closer until some 13.7 Gyr ago the entire universe is extremely small, dense, and hot".

Such is life though...
Chaballa
#11
May21-10, 07:21 PM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Nabeshin View Post
Yeah... this kind of crap always gets me. But it allows them to do two different things:
a) use flashy computer generated graphics, and
b) overly simplify something by analogy
yer there are always ups n downs, but i wouldn't say computer generated graphics used in documentry as flashy, they all seem outdated(in terms of graphics) n i guess they have to use it since they can't show the real event. In "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong" they actually used a real explorsion(not CGI) to display the Big Bang Theory.

Quote Quote by Nabeshin View Post
I mean, it really doesn't have the same effect to explain that, "since we observe all galaxies moving away from all other galaxies,"
yer thats also wat i understood from previous documentries, but when i watched "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge6RjTgyLr0), it talks about Dark flow(new to me) and says "Galaxies simply aren't meant to race across space in the same direction.".
emc2cracker
#12
May22-10, 09:20 AM
P: 91
For a second I thought you were advocating steady state! Thanks for clearing that up lol.
Chaballa
#13
May29-10, 02:04 PM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Fredrik View Post
I guess most documentaries suck.
It doesn't make sense to me.. ALL the documentaries(old ones n new ones) i've seen described the Big Bang as an explosion. All these documentaries had many experts(e.g. Professor of Physics, Cosmologist from all major universites), and wouldn't they also watch the same documentary since they are in it? and shouldn't they say umm that's wrong, Big Bang wasn't an explosion???
Dmitry67
#14
May29-10, 02:16 PM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
Did they have a chance to say that?
Even if they tell that it would be cut as 'too complicated stuff'
Fredrik
#15
May29-10, 02:30 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Fredrik's Avatar
P: 9,542
Quote Quote by Chaballa View Post
It doesn't make sense to me.. ALL the documentaries(old ones n new ones) i've seen described the Big Bang as an explosion. All these documentaries had many experts(e.g. Professor of Physics, Cosmologist from all major universites), and wouldn't they also watch the same documentary since they are in it? and shouldn't they say umm that's wrong, Big Bang wasn't an explosion???
I agree with you. The guy I quoted is a professor of experimental particle physics. That almost certainly means that he doesn't know the big bang stuff as well the science advisors who hang out here in the relativity and cosmology forums. But I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know that. So it makes me wonder why he agreed to say it. I would have refused.
Jerbearrrrrr
#16
May29-10, 02:55 PM
P: 127
Well, the distance between stuff is getting bigger. May as well call it an explosion just to get the point across. It was hot and smaller and more energetic than now. Not completely unlike an explosion. As long as the ants-on-a-balloon analogy is explained, I wouldn't blame them.
I'd hope people wouldn't be inclined to think it was like some cosmic-scale hand-grenade.
That Horizon wasn't a very good documentary though. I remember watching it and thinking ":|".

Anyway.

Can someone comment on the "reference frame" that's defined by the background radiation? I'm not sure what I want to know to be honest, but I'm sure the existence of such a reference frame has consequences.
Calimero
#17
May29-10, 03:05 PM
P: 256
Quote Quote by Jerbearrrrrr View Post
Can someone comment on the "reference frame" that's defined by the background radiation? I'm not sure what I want to know to be honest, but I'm sure the existence of such a reference frame has consequences.
Try this:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=405332

post #9 I think,
I don't know if it helps, but anyway...
emc2cracker
#18
May29-10, 03:18 PM
P: 91
EXACTLY And explosion looks precisely the same if you were to slow it down in time lapse.. its basicaly a release of energy. Which is exactly what the big bang was a huge release of energy, inflation or explosion... it looks and acts pretty much the same.

Thats why all the documentaries call it an explosion, in fact its not exactly wrong to call it an explosion its just more precise to call it an inflation. Most reasons being is that as opposed to being a destructive force the big bang was a positive creative force, as far as explosions go we have never ever seen anything like it. Thats why most people that have studied physics cringe at that explanation... but as far as putting the big bang in laymans terms there is nothing wrong with using the term explosion.

Frankly here I am surprised at much of the reaction to what people see in mainstream cosmology, even stuff defined by our most brilliant minds is ridiculed and called wrong. But really when we are backing up and trying to explain things we cannot hope to understand its kind of childish to say anyone is wrong.. anything born out of something we cannot explain is bound to have lots of imperfections under anyones definition.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Proof of the Big Bang and the Age of The Universe? Cosmology 8
Mathematical proof of the Big Bang Theory Math & Science Software 16
Is there any proof that big bang actually happened ? Cosmology 15