The Origin of the Universe: Reexamining the Big Bang Theory

[employee #416]

Hey, everyone, this is my first thread on this site.

I was thinking about the big bang. The big bang is noted as an explosion from a primeval atom. When this atom exploded, matter and energy scattered everywhere. From this explsion, space-time itself was created.

I find it hard to accept this theory. If this atom was said to give offspring to space-time, how could the singularity exist? What came before this singularity? How was it's existence brought up?

Gravity is an issue that blurs this concept. Gravitational forces get stronger as density increases. The singularity was a non-volumetric point that contained all of the matter (visible and not visible) in our universe today. This gave it finite density. Finite density would lead catastrophic gravitational effects. How could this singularity explode outwards, when the gravitational pull towards it were so great? One might counter this by saying the big bang gave offspring to the four fundamental fources which includes gravity, so there was no gravitational pull towards this singularity. If you counter with that, how was this atom held together, if gravity did not exist.

These are just a couple of questions I had. If you can answer, I'd be happy. I'm also trying to make a physics site, so your answers would help me out greatly.

I appreciate your help.

-employee #416

 

[Erus]

I happen to think what would be surrounding the singularity prior to the big bang? It would have to be Nothing (colorless, spaceless, timeless)... Infinite, time, space, color, all laws of physics would not exist until after the expansion..What about Multiverses did they have big bangs too? Then where did space come from for these singularities to dwell?

 

[employee #416]

How can there be nothing? Space is not nothing; space is something. Multiverses are not really proven to exist. Oh, how could this big bang be seated in nothing? There had to have been something to harness it.

 

[employee #416]

I just need help on this topic, so I can put it on my website. I don't want to put it on there and not fully comprehend it.

 

[Vern]

The Big Bang theory is a religion. Its adherents defend it as such. I have had papers that question the big bang theory rejected by reviewers citing that the papers were too dangerous to publish. An idea can only be dangerous to a faith.

I presently favor the Photon Theory of matter, and the rules of that theory would not permit there to be singularities, and certainly no Big Bang.

 

[da_willem]

The big bang is noted as an explosion from a primeval atom

what do you mean by a primeval atom (you cannot mean a normal atom)?

The singularity was a non-volumetric point that contained all of the matter (visible and not visible) in our universe today. This gave it finite density.

If you put a finite amount of mass in a infinitesimal point you get an infinite density.

 

[russ_watters]

If the universe is expanding, then at some time in the past, all matter was at the same point. The universe appears to be expanding. Pretty simple, really.

 

[north]

i think as well that IF there are black holes in the center of our galaxy then why would not the big bang represent a huge black hole that never exploded,since gravity would be enormous,how does the primordial mass release it's self?

and apparently 15 billion years is not enough time for the universe to organize it's self into galaxies and superclusters.

just some of the arguments i have come across against the big bang theory.

 

[mee]

If the universe is expanding, then at some time in the past, all matter was at the same point. The universe appears to be expanding. Pretty simple, really.

Then where would this point be? And where are we in relationship to it? It would perhaps seem a pretty simple calculation.

 

[north]

Then where would this point be? And where are we in relationship to it? It would perhaps seem a pretty simple calculation.

___________________________________________

there is no way to tell,thats why there is no definitive calculation done by now.the theory(big bang) is used to explain the universe more out of tradition than being truly a good theory.

 

[Vern]

Gravity causes a red shift in the wavelength of light; I wonder what percentage of the observed red shift in the light from distant galaxies is due to gravity taking also into account dark-matter gravity.

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

 

[north]

Gravity causes a red shift in the wavelength of light; I wonder what percentage of the observed red shift in the light from distant galaxies is due to gravity taking also into account dark-matter gravity.

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

___________________________________________

according to Halton Arp red shift is the production of matter and that the older, the lesser the red shift,just a perspective!

 

[da_willem]

Then where would this point be? And where are we in relationship to it? It would perhaps seem a pretty simple calculation.

Space itself expanded (and still does!). So the point itself expanded to become our universe. So that point is everywhere!

 

[north]

Space itself expanded (and still does!). So the point itself expanded to become our universe. So that point is everywhere!

___________________________________________

so why does not this point cancel it's self? if looking from one point,at the extreme optical range(far)from extreme closeness(us). and thus create a situation of non-expansion.?

 

[the bride]

i think the universe is infinite. i wanted to know if anyone else thinks like me.. this is my first post and I'm so EXCITED! also.. i don't believe black holes exist.. and i think the whole theory of the big bang is wrong... what does anyone else think?

 

[russ_watters]

Then where would this point be? And where are we in relationship to it? It would perhaps seem a pretty simple calculation.

If the universe itself is expanding (as opposed to the galaxies moving apart from an explosion), then there is no central point. The Big Bang happened everywhere at once. This is what our observations suggest.

i think the universe is infinite. i wanted to know if anyone else thinks like me..

It very well may be infinite.

i don't believe black holes exist.

15 years ago, it may have been a matter of belief (or rather, prediction), but today it isn't: several have been found.

 

[the bride]

maybe those aren't really black holes... perhaps those "black holes" are just neutron stars spinning really fast. astronomers can't actually "see" what is going on around the vicinity of a suspected "black hole", so who knows what is it they are classifying as a black hole. have they found black holes in between galaxies? i know there are intergalactic stars, so shouldn't there be intergalactic black holes?

 

[north]

i think the universe is infinite. i wanted to know if anyone else thinks like me.. this is my first post and I'm so EXCITED! also.. i don't believe black holes exist.. and i think the whole theory of the big bang is wrong... what does anyone else think?

___________________________________________

no doubt, the big bang is wrong,there are just to many arguments against,there are many theories and problems that question its validity. i suggest being open to other therories,right or wrong but by piecing together one therory to another I'm sure a better theory will come forth.

 

[Erck]

There's the point, that isn't explained.

The nothing that preceeded it, that isn't explained.

The nothing it's in, that isn't explained.

The point and the space expanding into what, that isn't explained.

The big bang theory, explains less than nothing.

An infinite universe, both in time and space, means it's always existed and it isn't contained within anything... except time and space.

But time and space are relative concepts.

Time needs to start... and space is a lack of something.

Neither one can exist before something else exists.

The point... which we can't seem to explain.

 

[north]

If the universe itself is expanding (as opposed to the galaxies moving apart from an explosion), then there is no central point. The Big Bang happened everywhere at once.
___________________________________________

so why the clumps of galaxies,superclusters?
and why the small time line? does this make sense? if so why?

 

[north]

There's the point, that isn't explained.

The nothing that preceeded it, that isn't explained.

The nothing it's in, that isn't explained.

The point and the space expanding into what, that isn't explained.

The big bang theory, explains less than nothing.

An infinite universe, both in time and space, means it's always existed and it isn't contained within anything... except time and space.

But time and space are relative concepts.

Time needs to start... and space is a lack of something.

Neither one can exist before something else exists.

The point... which we can't seem to explain.

__________________________________________

exactly, the problem!

 

[north]

several have been found!? i which direction is the black hole revolving(Canada or Australia perspective,since there is no observable difference between either) interesting isn't it?

 

[russ_watters]

maybe those aren't really black holes... perhaps those "black holes" are just neutron stars spinning really fast. astronomers can't actually "see" what is going on around the vicinity of a suspected "black hole", so who knows what is it they are classifying as a black hole.[emphasis added]

That's precisely the point: If they were neutron stars, or anything other than a black hole, they would be easily identifiable as such. Since they behave precisely as predicted, they are almost by definition, black holes.

Imagine scientists predicted the existence of an animal with a flat bill, feathers, and webbed feet that made a quacking sound - and then found one. Are you really going to tell me it could be an elephant?

have they found black holes in between galaxies? i know there are intergalactic stars, so shouldn't there be intergalactic black holes?

Since black holes can only be detected through their effects on surrounding objects, its unsurprising we haven't found any anywhere else but near other objects.

i suggest being open to other therories

I suggest being open to all theories - including existing ones.

so why the clumps of galaxies,superclusters?

Tiny perturbations can create such things: computer modeling/simulation has produced models remarkably similar to the way the universe looks today.

and why the small time line? does this make sense? if so why?

What is your issue with the timeline? And what does it making sense have to do with anything? The universe need not conform itself to your idea of what makes sense.

i which direction is the black hole revolving(Canada or Australia perspective,since there is no observable difference between either) interesting isn't it?

Could you rephrase? That's not a sentence.

There's the point, that isn't explained...

Rather unsatisfying, isn't it. To paraphrase an old saying - its the worst theory, except for all the others. Perhaps the answers you are looking for could better be found in other aspects of human knowledge. Science isn't "it."

An infinite universe, both in time and space, means it's always existed and it isn't contained within anything... except time and space.

Not necessarily - a ray, for example has an origin - a beginning, but no end.

 

[Erus]

If the universe is infinite, then all of its parts are infinite. Perhaps it is, but if multiverses do exist then this universe is finite, or perhaps I'm thinking of it wrong. If space and time are infinite, then something is wrong with the decaying process. You would have to assume that space and time are transposable. Perhaps Space is boundless, like Einstein stated. Like Earth, you can go in any direction and return to where you began. Neither Space or Time have to be finite (have a beginning), though it would make a lot of sense. Everything else we know has a beginning. Then again, everything else we know had a beginning before its beginning. So perhaps the universe is infinite in the actions caused to create the universe (big bang, and prior to). If we do not know why Existence is, then we cannot argue we know any truth. I am not speaking of religion, just how the human brain perceives the universe, and our system of mathematics, etc.

 

[the bride]

russ, what if astronomers are confusing pulsars, weird star explosions, etc. with black holes?? don't astronomers look for x-ray jets as a way to identify black holes? and the question still remains: are there intergalactic black holes?? another thing.. russ do you view an explosion and a ray as the same thing? when i think of an explosion, even in space, it can continue on forever, but it still has an "end" (place where the explosion hasn't reached yet). wouldn't the universe be the same? then this really gets interesting because there is supposed to be nothing outside the universe. i also find it interesting that something as chaotic as an explosion can produce things that are so organized like galaxies and solar systems... i don't know i just think that's a little weird..

 

[Entropy]

That's precisely the point: If they were neutron stars, or anything other than a black hole, they would be easily identifiable as such. Since they behave precisely as predicted, they are almost by definition, black holes.

I do believe in black holes, but I have to say there is no irrefutable evidence of there existence. What we see are disks of matter falling into a massive object, we have yet to see the "black" center. There are theories that predict equally massive (not black holes) that could easily create swirls of gas around them and look just as these disks do. Take for examplet Yilmaz variant of General Relativity which predicts that black holes do not exist. I don't necsisarily agree with any of those theories, I'm just saying it is still under debate.

 

[the bride]

Gravity is an issue that blurs this concept. Gravitational forces get stronger as density increases. The singularity was a non-volumetric point that contained all of the matter (visible and not visible) in our universe today. This gave it finite density. Finite density would lead catastrophic gravitational effects. How could this singularity explode outwards, when the gravitational pull towards it were so great? One might counter this by saying the big bang gave offspring to the four fundamental fources which includes gravity, so there was no gravitational pull towards this singularity. If you counter with that, how was this atom held together, if gravity did not exist.

oh neato! this is a really good point. maybe there was a gravitational force, but not like one we imagine. i know what einstein says about space-time curvature and gravity, so what was going on in that singularity? did space-time exist in it? or was space-time produced by the explosion??

 

[the bride]

There are theories that predict equally massive (not black holes) that could easily create swirls of gas around them and look just as these disks do.

neutron stars and white dwarfs supposedly form accretion disks around them... and i know that white dwarfs aren't that massive, neutron stars are like 2 solar masses, but i know they are really dense. i think density has a lot to do with gravity.

 

[russ_watters]

russ, what if astronomers are confusing pulsars, weird star explosions, etc. with black holes??

Pulsars and black holes are different and look different. They can't be confused with each other.

don't astronomers look for x-ray jets as a way to identify black holes?

Yes, among other things, such as gravitational influence.

and the question still remains: are there intergalactic black holes??

Intergalactic black holes might help with the dark matter issue, but they aren't pertinent to the question of whether black holes exist.

another thing.. russ do you view an explosion and a ray as the same thing? when i think of an explosion, even in space, it can continue on forever, but it still has an "end" (place where the explosion hasn't reached yet). wouldn't the universe be the same?

An particle in an explosion in space would travel in a ray, but that was just an example - the Big Bang was not an explosion. That's a common misconception.

There are theories that predict equally massive (not black holes) that could easily create swirls of gas around them and look just as these disks do. Take for examplet Yilmaz variant of General Relativity which predicts that black holes do not exist. I don't necsisarily agree with any of those theories, I'm just saying it is still under debate.

Is there really much consideration of these ideas within the scientific community? It was my perception that no alternates are really considered to be viable by consensus.

 

[Entropy]

neutron stars and white dwarfs supposedly form accretion disks around them... and i know that white dwarfs aren't that massive, neutron stars are like 2 solar masses, but i know they are really dense. i think density has a lot to do with gravity.

Unlikely, if so much mass was falling into a neutron star then by current relativity it would collapse into a black hole quite soon.

 

[Chronos]

Singularities only exist mathematically. There is no observational evidence black holes, or the big bang singularity, are infinitely dense. Theorists are currently leaning toward finite density. The Planck density is an attractive alternative to infinite density.

 

[employee #416]

what do you mean by a primeval atom (you cannot mean a normal atom)?

Primeval atom simply means the first atom. The big bang was theorized to be the explosion of the first atom to ever exist.

Space itself expanded (and still does!). So the point itself expanded to become our universe. So that point is everywhere!

There is no concrete evidence that space is expanding.

russ_watters, your ponits are being countered with great arguements. I'm leaning towards the side of them not existing now.

Since black holes can only be detected through their effects on surrounding objects, its unsurprising we haven't found any anywhere else but near other objects.

I think that is the point that bride is trying to make.

Pulsars and black holes are different and look different.

So, what visible characteristics of black holes make them differ from the visible characteristics of pulsars? I thought black holes were not visible, so how can they "look different" than pulsars. Unless, of course, you are referring to the outer region of the two.

 

[Chronos]

There is no concrete evidence that space is expanding.

That assertion is false.

russ_watters, your ponits are being countered with great arguements. I'm leaning towards the side of them not existing now.

There is overwhelming evidence his points are correct.

what visible characteristics of black holes make them differ from the visible characteristics of pulsars?

They are far more massive than a neutron star can possibly be.

I thought black holes were not visible, so how can they "look different" than pulsars. Unless, of course, you are referring to the outer region of the two.

In a number of ways.

 

[employee #416]

That assertion is false.

Vern explained that the universe could very well not be expanding. The evidence they have so far are not concrete. If so, can you provide me a link to where they are 100% sure the universe is expanding and provide valid evidence to back this claim up?

More massive objects do not mean they are visibly different. Black holes are very small. How are they visibly different just by being more massive? Black holes have not be observed directly. Only through indirect observations. So to say they are visually different from pulsars is inaccurate. Maybe they look the same, but they are much more compact?

What we see around black holes is what is happening through interactions at the event horizon. This is not the black hole itself.

Thanks to everyone for your replies. When I get done with my site, I'll provide link. I'll have a number of quotes from you...if that's ok?

 

[Chronos]

Vern explained that the universe could very well not be expanding. The evidence they have so far are not concrete. If so, can you provide me a link to where they are 100% sure the universe is expanding and provide valid evidence to back this claim up?

No one is 100% sure of anything. Most rational people fall back to the preponderance of evidence. Start here for the 'preponderance of evidence' that the universe is expanding.

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html