Why is the existence of The Big Bang agreed upon?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MindAstronaut
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Existence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the reasons for the acceptance of the Big Bang theory in cosmology, contrasting it with the speculative concept of white holes. Participants explore various aspects of black holes, conservation laws, and the implications of these ideas on our understanding of the universe's origins.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that black holes challenge conservation laws, suggesting they could destroy energy and information, while others clarify that these laws do not apply within singularities.
  • There is a proposal that white holes could explain cosmic phenomena such as the universe's expansion and background radiation, although many participants consider this idea speculative and lacking evidence.
  • One participant questions the validity of the Big Bang theory, suggesting it is as speculative as the white hole concept, while others defend the Big Bang by referencing scientific models that describe the universe's early state.
  • Concerns are raised about misunderstandings regarding the nature of the universe's expansion, with some participants clarifying that it does not originate from a central point.
  • Evidence for black holes is discussed, with references to specific examples like Cygnus X-1, while the existence of white holes remains unsubstantiated in the observable universe.
  • Participants express confusion about the acceptance of the Big Bang and seek deeper explanations, particularly regarding alternative theories like the "Eternal Bubble." Some responses highlight the speculative nature of such theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement on the validity of white holes and their relationship to black holes, with some defending the Big Bang theory while others question its speculative nature. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the acceptance of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of understanding about black holes and white holes, leading to confusion over fundamental concepts. The discussion includes speculative ideas that lack consensus or empirical support.

  • #31


Maybe the question shouldn't be why is the universe expanding but why does it appear to be.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32


MindAstronaut said:
Since were not just expanding, but accelerating! Doesn't this point to evidence of some type of "anti-gravity" or repulsion?

Well, yes it sure does ... we call this "dark energy". Look it up.
 
  • #33


bill alsept said:
Maybe the question shouldn't be why is the universe expanding but why does it appear to be.

Why do you think it is not?
 
  • #34


Would there be any consequences on the timeline, or should I say would there be any consequences on the unification of forces if the Higgs aint found? What would change, specifically what would change about the way of looking at the Electroweak and Electronuclear forces, if there would be any change at all?

Also, not to go off-topic, Id like to continue the current discussion, but do the electroweak/electronuclear bosons still travel at c? Do they have a shorter range than the EM force?
 
  • #35


RE reply #9. Sudden violent expansion is exactly what an explosion is. There can have been no greater, nor more violent, rate of expansion than that provided by "inflation". This would have provided the ballistic impetus, (if "inflation" actually happened). Gravitational restraint would bring about the faster with distance view. Proof of this will be evidenced if we should see an increase in the rate at which galaxies move apart. Observers should be warned that this will give the impression of acceleration!
"As a rule, the more bizarre a thing is, the less mysterious it proves to be". (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)
 
Last edited:
  • #36


Peter Watkins said:
RE reply #9. Sudden violent expansion is exactly what an explosion is. There can have been no greater, nor more violent, rate of expansion than that provided by "inflation". This would have provided the ballistic impetus, (if "inflation" actually happened). Gravitational restraint would bring about the faster with distance view. Proof of this will be evidenced if we should see an increase in the rate at which galaxies move apart. Observers should be warned that this will give the impression of acceleration!
"As a rule, the more bizarre a thing is, the less mysterious it proves to be". (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

Yes, but an explosion happens at a PLACE. The expansion happened everywhere at once.

I Can't really comment on the rest of your post but to say that it doesn't make sense to me except for the Doyle quote.
 
  • #37


All visual evidence, and the inflation theory, and the inflating balloon theory states that the big bang did take place at a single point in time and space, away from which all matter is moving. All the "rewinding", over four decades, in order to establish our age, point to this being the case, and being believed to be the case. There is no evidence that states otherwise.
 
  • #38


Peter Watkins said:
... the inflating balloon theory ...
Analogy. It's just an analogy to help people having trouble understanding. It has no predictive ability.

Peter Watkins said:
states that the big bang did take place at a single point in time and space,
A single point in time, yes. Single point in space, no.

It took place of space, not in space. i.e. everywhere in space.
 
Last edited:
  • #39


Peter Watkins said:
All visual evidence, and the inflation theory, and the inflating balloon theory states that the big bang did take place at a single point in time and space, away from which all matter is moving. All the "rewinding", over four decades, in order to establish our age, point to this being the case, and being believed to be the case. There is no evidence that states otherwise.

Quite the contrary. ALL evidence states otherwise. You really should read up on this stuff before you make such incorrect pronouncements.
 
  • #40


Peter has got the wrong end of the stick about how we get the age of the Universe from Hubble expansion.

The traditional big bang theory says that space and time expanded suddenly from a singularity ... that is to say that the universe had a state in which all time and space were the same place. This would be represented by a point in 4D - but that point does not have a specific location within space-time - it is space time.

The Hubble expansion does not procede from a particular (x,y,z) position in space which could be considered the center of some explosion. No matter where you are, you will discover yourself at the center of the expansion - ergo: it is everywhere at once.

It is a very common misconception. But fair enough - it's a tricky concept.
 
  • #41


I am not as learned as most (all of you) but I think the misconception at the beginning of this thread with black holes and white holes is that the first poster viewed black holes as funnels to somewhere like a tornado. A black hole does not take matter and transfer it somewhere else it take the matter and keeps it. The "funnel" concept is what is used to depict black holes on TV and movies and confuses people, they tend to think of black holes like powerfully attractive worm holes that transport matter from one point to another. Another universe where the "backend" of a black holes spits out matter as a white hole. I apologize if I am wrong about his misconception but this is how many of the "lay people" I know view black holes.
 
  • #42


So what is the evidence that states otherwise, bearing in mind the the einstein on line website, promoted by Marcus, states that "rewinding" the expansion would bring us to a single point.
 
  • #43


Re #36. Are you saying that you cannot understand the effect that gravity would have upon a large mass of expanding matter, and how it would produce the "faster with distance" view?
 
  • #44


Peter Watkins said:
So what is the evidence that states otherwise, bearing in mind the the einstein on line website, promoted by Marcus, states that "rewinding" the expansion would bring us to a single point.

Peter Watkins said:
Re #36. Are you saying that you cannot understand the effect that gravity would have upon a large mass of expanding matter, and how it would produce the "faster with distance" view?
Please use the quote feature. It is very difficult to figure out exactly what your responses are referring to.
 
  • #45


How do I do that? Is it as simple as just ticking the box?
 

Similar threads

High School Could Black Hole Collisions Trigger a Cyclical Big Bang and Universe Rebirth?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Undergrad Why didn't the Big Bang form a Black Hole?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Shouldn't the Big bang be physically impossible?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
High School What happens to information inside a black hole?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
899
Undergrad Is the Big Bang Actually a White Hole?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
Undergrad Schwartzchild radius and the Big Bang
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
High School Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
High School Why The Big Bang banged and didn’t collapsed into a black hole?
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Undergrad Question about the big bang singularity
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Graduate Form of energy at time of big bang
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K