Big bang, schmig bang: everything's just shrinking

[DrChinese]

It is the putting together of all the pieces that tips the scale on one theory over another.

Hoyle had come up with argument after argument, as convoluted as needed, to keep the steady state theory going against the big bang. He tried to account for Hubble's red shift, and other pieces of the puzzle. Then the cosmic microwave radiation was discovered around 1965, and that was the end of the steady state theory.

So the same applies to a shrinking matter model. Are you trying to say there was no big bang? If so, where does the radiation come from? That is neatly accounted for in an expanding universe model.

 

[Jack Martinelli]

It is the putting together of all the pieces that tips the scale on one theory over another.

except all the pieces aren't in place yet. It is unlikely that they ever will be.

Then the cosmic microwave radiation was discovered around 1965, and that was the end of the steady state theory.

Really?

So the same applies to a shrinking matter model. Are you trying to say there was no big bang? If so, where does the radiation come from? That is neatly accounted for in an expanding universe model.

The big bang theory is dubious & has been since inflation is needed to hold it up & since galactic recession has been found to be accelerating.

 

[Nereid]

[re Big Bang:] except all the pieces aren't in place yet. It is unlikely that they ever will be.

[re discovery of CMBR being the end of the Steady State theory:] Really?

[re the Big Bang theory accounting for observations:] The big bang theory is dubious & has been since inflation is needed to hold it up & since galactic recession has been found to be accelerating.

It seems, Jack, that you are somewhat sceptical of the strength of the Big Bang theory. Is your scepticism based on any particular sets of observations which the BB theory cannot account for (or accounts for only poorly)? or a more general discomfort with the whole concept? or a belief that an alternative to the BB theory better matches the data?

AFAIK, the BB theory is really the only game in town at the moment; it accounts for all the observations to within the error budgets, and all other theories have serious difficulties with at least one well established set of observations.

Of course, since cosmology is now within the realm of science, the BB theory can never be 'proven', science doesn't work like that.

 

[Jack Martinelli]

It seems, Jack, that you are somewhat sceptical of the strength of the Big Bang theory. Is your scepticism based on any particular sets of observations which the BB theory cannot account for (or accounts for only poorly)?

How about gravity? It's an observable & BB theory doesn't account for it.

If recession is accelerating, is it constant, increasing, or decreasing? How does this answer impact the age of the universe? Or CMBR?

or a more general discomfort with the whole concept? or a belief that an alternative to the BB theory better matches the data?

Because there are some serious open questions related to BBT, I'm hesitant to say that such a thing actuall happened.

AFAIK, the BB theory is really the only game in town at the moment;

If it were the only drinking hole in town. That's where you'd find me. I'm a little pickier with my science.

it accounts for all the observations to within the error budgets, and all other theories have serious difficulties with at least one well established set of observations.

All observations? How about the relative masses of the elementary particles?

Of course, since cosmology is now within the realm of science, the BB theory can never be 'proven', science doesn't work like that.

I agree.

 

[DrChinese]

How about gravity? It's an observable & BB theory doesn't account for it.

If recession is accelerating, is it constant, increasing, or decreasing? How does this answer impact the age of the universe? Or CMBR?

Because there are some serious open questions related to BBT, I'm hesitant to say that such a thing actuall happened.

If it were the only drinking hole in town. That's where you'd find me. I'm a little pickier with my science.

All observations? How about the relative masses of the elementary particles?

Your thinking is seriously flawed.

Gravity is accounted for by GR as you know. The "serious" flaws you try to describe in the BB - mass of particles, strength of gravity, etc. - are really issues of the respective theories (GR, QM) and not the BB itself. Most physicists to not consider these flaws anyway - those theories treat them as free parameters not requiring a specific value. Failure to explain the value itself is not a flaw at all.

Theory evolves, and perhaps one day an answer to those questions will be discovered. In fact, it is no different than evolution not being able to explain why it took 4 billion years for intelligent life to develop on Earth (versus 1 billion or 10 billion). Or perhaps you haven't bought into that yet either.

I don't agree that you are being picky with your science. The standard model is quite picky. You viewpoint is purely retro. However, I would be willing to meet you at the local watering hole to discuss ;)

 

[Nereid]

How about gravity? It's an observable & BB theory doesn't account for it.

If recession is accelerating, is it constant, increasing, or decreasing? How does this answer impact the age of the universe? Or CMBR?

Because there are some serious open questions related to BBT, I'm hesitant to say that such a thing actuall happened.

If it were the only drinking hole in town. That's where you'd find me. I'm a little pickier with my science.

All observations? How about the relative masses of the elementary particles?

DrChinese addressed your points well, I feel. However, I'd like to expand on one point: the scope, or domain, of a scientific theory.

In economics, there's a thing called the theory of comparative advantage, and it's pretty good in its domain of applicability (industries which countries engaged in free trade should concentrate on in order to maximise the economic benefits to each country). However, it's useless for accounting for the photosynthetic pathways in plants, or the spectrum of hydrogen. And biologists, physicists and economists are quite relaxed about this.

Similarly, in physics there's a thing called general relativity (GR), and it's pretty good in its domain. ... you get the picture I'm sure.

So, wrt the Big Bang theories (there's more than one), its domain of applicability is the large-scale structure (and some small scale structure) and evolution of the universe, at least from the time of radiation-(ordinary) matter decoupling if not from ~Planck time.

Then there's how 'fundamental' a theory is. Crudely, ecology is 'just' biology, which in turn is 'just' chemistry, ... until you get to GR and the QM/QFT/SM (Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, the Standard Model); these two are the most fundamental theories we have. And, as has been noted many times in PF, there are regimes in which predictions of each are in serious conflict. The BBT is 'just' a theory built on GR and the SM, it does not supercede either, nor does it set out to. Some of its predictions may turn out to be very good tests of either GR or the SM ... let's see. Some of its components have strange new things - dark energy for example - but they are not things which 'overthrow' GR or the SM.

Your question about 'recession' is a good one; I'll address it in another post.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a little pickier with my science.

So what do you pick as an alternative?

 

[jcsd]

How does big bang theory not account for gravity? it comes from what could be seen as a theory of gravity (GR) and gravity plays key roles in nearly all of it's equations.

 

[Jack Martinelli]

So what do you pick as an alternative?

Nothing yet.

Until someone derives the 26(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html) fundamental constants from a fundamental idea, I won't accept anything.

The fundamentally correct idea, I think is: For every change there is an equal but opposite change.

 

[Nereid]

The fundamentally correct idea, I think is: For every change there is an equal but opposite change.

Why a binary world? Why not "for every change there are 10¹⁰⁰ equal and opposite changes"?

 

[Jack Martinelli]

Why a binary world? Why not "for every change there are 10¹⁰⁰ equal and opposite changes"?

Its not symetric. I don't know that the universe is actually symetric, but I think its a pretty good guess.

 

[DrChinese]

How does big bang theory not account for gravity? it comes from what could be seen as a theory of gravity (GR) and gravity plays key roles in nearly all of it's equations.

Well, the obvious answer to that is that GR essentially preceded the modern theory of the Big Bang. It is not dependent on it any way. Rather, the BB leads to predicted evolution of the universe according to GR. GR could be valid and the BB not be, because of the independence of the two.

Yet they both fit neatly with observations.

 

[Quantum-lept]

The type of red**** that cosmologists observe affects every star/galaxy outside our own...every one.

I just realized I said red**** instead of redshift...oh **** I did it again.

Okay, am i looking for redshift or redgarbage?!..Cosmology is so confusing!

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is a six year old thread.