Big Bang Theory: Can It Really Explain the Universe?

[Mr. Pullen]

alright so my friend was telling me about the big bang. anyways he was saying that it all came out of some black hole or w/e and i don't really believe him. my parents say that its not possible that the universe was made a million years ago so i don't know wat to believe. i mean i took phycical science in school and it was right before my religeon class and they always told me it was just a thery. even if there was a big bang it doesn't make sense that all that stuff would just come out of nothing. you got to have some1 there to start it like god or something right? i mean a picture doesn't paint itself so how does the universe start itself? also if you see a watch you know that it has to have been made by some1 to right? there's no way that a watch could randomly come together out of nothing. so I am really confused and I am really curius. help??

 

[jtbell]

my parents say that its not possible that the universe was made a million years ago

They're right. It was a lot longer than a million years ago.

 

[nicksauce]

The current state of our knowledge is that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago. It eventually cooled, and then galaxies, stars, planets and people eventually formed. There are piles of evidence to support this. Anyone who says it is "not possible" or that it is "just a theory" is either ignorant or being intellectually dishonest.

The rest of your questions seem philosophical in nature and probably are best not discussed on a forum about physics. However, I will point out that the watch maker / painting arguments are just silly. There are plenty of examples of complex structures that can be formed without design. Mountains for instance. Or galaxies or stars. The list goes on.

 

[SpaceExplorer]

U should read some of Stephen Hawking's books, no one has a clearer picture about this matter than him... Now to your question there are no definite answers and to know the definite answer is beyond our limitations...the idea of big bang came from the observation that all the galaxies are moving away from each other(Edwin Hubble's obs'n) and if we go back in time it'd appear as if the whole universe started from a point and then expanded, but at this point which is of infinite density, all laws of physics break down thus eliminating our predictability...many satisfactory observations have ensured the existence of a big bang, but what led to the big bang no one can say ...u may believe in a creator but he can't be god, even he must have limitations.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm not sure if I detect a troll here.

I can never tell with people raised by creationists whether they are being serious or not. The same phrases like the watch and the painting, come up time and again. I find it impossible to tell if they are being ironic or serious.

My prediction is that this will deteriorate very quickly so: IBTL.

EDIT: I really hope I am wrong, and you actually are here to gain knowledge on the big bang. As it's perfectly acceptable to have a faith (If indeed you do believe in a god) and believe that science is the very best mechanism for telling us how everything works.

 

[LURCH]

The initial black hole is a bit of a sticking point for the Big Bang model. It is derived from the fact that enough matter exists within the universe for individual black holes to exist; therefore, all the matter in the universe gathered into one spot would necessaerily be a black hole. Since objects inside a black hole cannot move outward away from the center, the BB model appears to lead to a paradox.

For most theorists, the weight of the evidence in favor of the model remains overwhelming.

 

[Mr. Pullen]

Thanks for the help

 

[Mr. Pullen]

I am still real confused tho

 

[xxChrisxx]

It's also a bit of a misnomer calling it a black hole. As that is a stellar body within spacetime. This was a singularity of spacetime itsself, so the rules don't apply in the same way.

So the start of the universe was not a black hole, merely a singularity.

The problem is, we can only look back and devise experiments that go back to a time after the inital event. I think the shortest time we know after the inital event is on the order of 10^-40 seconds (or something like that), before that we don't really know what happened, and can't currently think of an experiment to find out. However they are smart people and will work it out eventually.

 

[diogenesNY]

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

 

[cybersysop]

I have heard many stories about the big bang theory. I believe we had a big bang because the evidence is there. However, I have found zero credible evidence suggesting that was the only beginning of our universe as most all is based on if??. We only have the technology to theoretically look back in space 18 billion years ago as that is how old the light is supposedly and there are plenty of galaxies there then. String theory, Membranes, Donuts, dimensions etc. We know so little and we all have so many questions. I love this subject and it is clear, the more answers we have, the more the questions become exponential. Personally, I like the multi parallel time/dimensional continuum theory the best of which I just made up, but it sounds cool.
Truthfully, I do love this subject, I just have not found an answer yet that passes the test.

 

[blank.black]

I am still real confused tho

What specific part are you really confused about?

 

[blank.black]

Personally, I like the multi parallel time/dimensional continuum theory the best of which I just made up, but it sounds cool.

What exactly does this theory of yours suggest?

 

[nicksauce]

What exactly does this theory of yours suggest?

Discussion of personal theories is not allowed on PF, so it is probably not best to ask.

 

[Fredrik]

they always told me it was just a thery.

This phrase is only used by people who have completely misunderstood what a theory is. A theory isn't a guess that might be true. It's a set of statements that can be used to make predictions about results of experiments. The predictions can be good or bad, but it's only if they're good that we consider the theory to be a good theory. Evolution is definitely a good theory. To dismiss it because "it's a theory" makes as much sense as dismissing the idea that stuff you drop will fall to the ground because Newton's theory of gravity is a theory.

So don't buy into the "it's just a theory" nonsense. Evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution is what explains it.

Remember this: If it makes predictions, it's a theory. (That's why "God did it" and "there's a god" aren't theories, but "the Earth is round" is). If the predictions are accurate, it's a good theory.

even if there was a big bang it doesn't make sense that all that stuff would just come out of nothing. you got to have some1 there to start it like god or something right?

That argument is illogical. If everything needs to be started by something...(I'll let you figure out on your own how that sentence ends).

also if you see a watch you know that it has to have been made by some1 to right? there's no way that a watch could randomly come together out of nothing.

This argument is a straw man. The parts of a clock don't reproduce, they don't mutate, and they don't interact with each other in any interesting way. So clock parts are very different from living things. Different enough to make the watchmaker argument completely irrelevant. If you want to understand this better, I recommend the book The blind watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

If you have questions about evolution, you can post them in the biology section of this forum, or e.g. at forums.randi.org. You can also check out http://www.talkorigins.org/. See the FAQ section. Perhaps your questions have already been answered there.

 

[cybersysop]

What exactly does this theory of yours suggest?

Actually, I did not make up the theory and it is self explanatory to sum degree, but it is not mine. What I made up was "that I liked it the best". There are so many good theory involved in this subject it is hard to pick just one. Clocks don't last forever, their parts corrode and wear out, that's not a stretch to call that a mutation as it wears out and eventually disintegrates. I don't have the answer here, but I do have my own theory (yes a real theory, and not just speculation) that I would not put up because of the rules. But this question of the big bang is a hard one to over come today (mainly because of moore's law and computational capability limitations). How do you make something from nothing?
Many think that is what the big bang implies, which actually is does not at all. This is one of my favorite subjects of all.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Remember this: If it makes predictions, it's a theory. (That's why "God did it" and "there's a god" aren't theories, but "the Earth is round" is). If the predictions are accurate, it's a good theory.

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.

The statement "The Earth is round" is a fact. The theory of gravity explains why it's round.

Just like gravity is a fact, it's the label we give the force that makes things drop to earth. The theory of gravity explains the fact.

Just a different take on the nomenclature.

 

[blank.black]

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?

 

[xxChrisxx]

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 that's 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]

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 that's the subforum) if you want.

Ok. I see what you mean. Thanks xxChrisxx.

 

[russ_watters]

In the past we had a forum dedicated to peoples' personal theories, but it became overrun with crackpots and overwhealmed the moderating staff.

 

[cybersysop]

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]

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.

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]

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/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03

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

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-first-few-microsecond-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

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]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03

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

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-first-few-microsecond-2006-05

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]

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]

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]

Okay, I think I may have a solution to the not full article showing up problem: I shall sort of 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 isn't 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?chanID=sa006&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147

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

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0009A312-037F-1448-837F83414B7F014D

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

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]

Thank you diogenesNY,
I will review that ASAP.
Thanks again. That was nice of you!

 

[StandardsGuy]

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]

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]

A good reason for not posting your theory is so that nobody can steal it

 

[xxChrisxx]

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]

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 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?
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 can't 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 that's 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]

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 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?
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 that's 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]

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.