Attempt to prove the Big Bang by contradiction.

[SHtRO]

The Big Bang theory, derived from Hubble's original hypothesis regarding red-shift, states that the Universe is expanding. Hubble's hypothesis was effected by Einstein's observations of light (c is constant) and by Doppler's experiments and statement of the "Doppler Effect". The three fundamental supporting pillars for the "Big Bang" are:

• redshift interpreted as the Doppler Effect
  
• the abundance of light elements in the visible Universe
  
• cosmic background radiation interpreted as remnant heat
  

 

The problems with these pillars (and I've always had this issue) is that the theoretical logic is exceptionally circular and affected by the "culture of the times." The observations support "Big Bang" only if you assume the observations support "Big Bang". The Big Bang theory cannot be deduced from the observations in a provable way.

 

Because experimental evidence and observations have cast much doubt on the original hypotheses of the Doppler qualities of the light, the Big Bang theory itself has been revised innumerable times. Most recently something like 23 competing theories of Universal Expansion were tested against WMAP observations and revealed that only one theory held . That theory provided unknowns on both the matter and energy sides of the general relativity equation (dubbed "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" respectively). These observations and verifications also upheld that the Universe was "flat" (neither open nor closed).

 

If, for the sake of proof by contradiction, one were to assume that there was no Big Bang (heresy, I realize) then we can assume no mysterious initial "explosion" to propel the expansion and resulting redshift, yet we cannot dismiss the observational existence of the three pillars above.

 

Since we cannot, without assumption, assume the redshift is caused by recession (Doppler) we must find another explanation. By Occam's Razor, we would look to the next logical candidate (one we don't fully understand mind you). My own conclusion is that the redshift is due to "expansion" which is occuring only within gravitational fields.

 

For instance, when we look at the core of our own galaxy (of which we simply don't do enough, IMHO), we would "measure" the diameter from our own relative perspective. However, if we resided in the core, the curvature of space due to gravitation would be such that the distances are actually much larger.

 

The preponderence of light elements such as Hydrogen, Deuterium, Helium, can be easily explained by known processes such as star formation, nuclear fusion and fission, and especially major phenonmena such as galactic collisions.

 

The background radiation itself cannot be explained without a better understanding of the nature of light itself and its interaction with gravity. For instance, if one were to assume that the microwave radiation was nothing more than the resonance of fully formed galaxies throughout the Universe, on a scale heretofore unimagined, the observations (fuzziness, equal proton/neutron distribution) would not contradict that assumption. After all the parallax of particles at that enormous (unknown) distance could very well prevent the resolution of a single photon and instead result in "summing" of photons of extremely high wavelength. Because matter consists of equal parts photons and neutrons, then the apparition of deuterium spectra would not be a surprise at all.

 

The two most critical things to consider, if assuming there is no Big Bang, are the facts that we observe nothing but light in some wavelength. Secondly, that the observation of light may have an inherent "limit" due to the field natures of light and gravity and the enormous distances light must travel. The assumption that the light does nothing but redden across a distance as enormous as 15 billion light years (perhaps much further) cannot be proven. Nor do we have any decent models of what extremely distant light would look like to someone in the center of a massive gravitational field that increased in strength over time.

 

Consider that if Big Bang were not assumed, then we might conclude something completely different about the light we view and might have predicted the following before the observations were made:

1. The Hubble Telescope's observations of innumerable fully formed galaxies at previously unpredicted distances.
   
2. The WMAP observations that the CMB is not homogenous.
   
3. Chandra observations of thousands of black holes in the core of the Milky Way.
   

 

Further (and finally) if we were to stop assuming a "beginning" and take into account that QM delayed-choice experiments point to the possibility that our own perception of time's arrow may be nothing more than a multi-dimensional vector, then we might conclude that the other physical evidence supporting the notion of an explosion might be better related to Gamma Ray Bursts and galactic collisions than one single universal phenomenon.

 

My point is that the Big Bang theory cannot be easily proven by contradiction, and furthermore that the assumption of "no Big Bang" does not contradict the known observations and experiments. We simply don't know because we ourselves are within a gravitational field we don't fully understand, nor do we fully understand the nature of consciousness and observation itself, as the current state of QM demonstrates. (Sorry for the touch of meta-physics but I think it drives the point home.)

[CPL.Luke]

couple of things: (in order of when I thought of them)

 

1. are you familiar with the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics or the path integral that richard feynman proposed? these solve the problem of what consciousness is and observation, by showing that the mathmatical model they have can predict the actions of subatomic particles ie. "shut up and calculate"- richard feynmann

 

2. You are thinking of a very old and out of date big bang model. the modern inflation theory of the big bang proposes that the universe sprung out of a false vaccuum

[Nicholas]

If space-time is getting larger then it was once small.

Run expansion backwards and there is a begining at

a singularity. No way around it.

[Guest amazed]

c= speed of light.

Seems lately that even the 'c' constant may not be constant. You might want to break out your stopwatch, and clock that light beam again. That sure would throw some sand into the physics gearbox.

[luc]

The Big Bang theory' date=' derived from Hubble's original hypothesis regarding red-shift, states that the Universe is expanding. Hubble's hypothesis was effected by Einstein's observations of light (c is constant) and by Doppler's experiments and statement of the "Doppler Effect". The three fundamental supporting pillars for the "Big Bang" are:

[list']

[*]redshift interpreted as the Doppler Effect

[*]the abundance of light elements in the visible Universe

[*]cosmic background radiation interpreted as remnant heat

 

The problems with these pillars (and I've always had this issue) is that the theoretical logic is exceptionally circular and affected by the "culture of the times." The observations support "Big Bang" only if you assume the observations support "Big Bang". The Big Bang theory cannot be deduced from the observations in a provable way.

 

Because experimental evidence and observations have cast much doubt on the original hypotheses of the Doppler qualities of the light, the Big Bang theory itself has been revised innumerable times. Most recently something like 23 competing theories of Universal Expansion were tested against WMAP observations and revealed that only one theory held . That theory provided unknowns on both the matter and energy sides of the general relativity equation (dubbed "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" respectively). These observations and verifications also upheld that the Universe was "flat" (neither open nor closed).

 

If, for the sake of proof by contradiction, one were to assume that there was no Big Bang (heresy, I realize) then we can assume no mysterious initial "explosion" to propel the expansion and resulting redshift, yet we cannot dismiss the observational existence of the three pillars above.

 

Since we cannot, without assumption, assume the redshift is caused by recession (Doppler) we must find another explanation. By Occam's Razor, we would look to the next logical candidate (one we don't fully understand mind you). My own conclusion is that the redshift is due to "expansion" which is occuring only within gravitational fields.

 

For instance, when we look at the core of our own galaxy (of which we simply don't do enough, IMHO), we would "measure" the diameter from our own relative perspective. However, if we resided in the core, the curvature of space due to gravitation would be such that the distances are actually much larger.

 

The preponderence of light elements such as Hydrogen, Deuterium, Helium, can be easily explained by known processes such as star formation, nuclear fusion and fission, and especially major phenonmena such as galactic collisions.

 

The background radiation itself cannot be explained without a better understanding of the nature of light itself and its interaction with gravity. For instance, if one were to assume that the microwave radiation was nothing more than the resonance of fully formed galaxies throughout the Universe, on a scale heretofore unimagined, the observations (fuzziness, equal proton/neutron distribution) would not contradict that assumption. After all the parallax of particles at that enormous (unknown) distance could very well prevent the resolution of a single photon and instead result in "summing" of photons of extremely high wavelength. Because matter consists of equal parts photons and neutrons, then the apparition of deuterium spectra would not be a surprise at all.

 

The two most critical things to consider, if assuming there is no Big Bang, are the facts that we observe nothing but light in some wavelength. Secondly, that the observation of light may have an inherent "limit" due to the field natures of light and gravity and the enormous distances light must travel. The assumption that the light does nothing but redden across a distance as enormous as 15 billion light years (perhaps much further) cannot be proven. Nor do we have any decent models of what extremely distant light would look like to someone in the center of a massive gravitational field that increased in strength over time.

 

Consider that if Big Bang were not assumed, then we might conclude something completely different about the light we view and might have predicted the following before the observations were made:

1. The Hubble Telescope's observations of innumerable fully formed galaxies at previously unpredicted distances.
   
2. The WMAP observations that the CMB is not homogenous.
   
3. Chandra observations of thousands of black holes in the core of the Milky Way.
   

 

Further (and finally) if we were to stop assuming a "beginning" and take into account that QM delayed-choice experiments point to the possibility that our own perception of time's arrow may be nothing more than a multi-dimensional vector, then we might conclude that the other physical evidence supporting the notion of an explosion might be better related to Gamma Ray Bursts and galactic collisions than one single universal phenomenon.

 

My point is that the Big Bang theory cannot be easily proven by contradiction, and furthermore that the assumption of "no Big Bang" does not contradict the known observations and experiments. We simply don't know because we ourselves are within a gravitational field we don't fully understand, nor do we fully understand the nature of consciousness and observation itself, as the current state of QM demonstrates. (Sorry for the touch of meta-physics but I think it drives the point home.)

 

The redshift is not interpreted as a Doppler Effect. Is interpreted as having a cosmological origin, so is called "Cosmological Redshift". The contribution of Doppler Effect to the observed redshift is very small

[SHtRO]

First to address Luc... Yes, I said:

The Big Bang theory, derived from Hubble's original hypothesis regarding red-shift, states that the Universe is expanding. Hubble's hypothesis was effected by Einstein's observations of light (c is constant) and by Doppler's experiments and statement of the "Doppler Effect".

 

I believe this statement is historically accurate, even if the theory Hubble propounded turned out not to be (accurate, that is).

 

Notice I also said:

Because experimental evidence and observations have cast much doubt on the original hypotheses of the Doppler qualities of the light, the Big Bang theory itself has been revised innumerable times. Most recently something like 23 competing theories of Universal Expansion were tested against WMAP observations and revealed that only one theory held.

 

I also recently learned that something like 10,000,000 models based on these theories were compared against the WMAP data.

 

Maybe you didn't get past the first paragraph?

 

Secondly to address CPL.Luke...

Yes, I am familiar with Copenhagen model and Feynman. Feynman died in 1988 (sadly) and did not benefit much from the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra, or WMAP observations. While his mathematics was sharp, his physics was no more accurate than the Standard Big Bang model. I did mention QM so your response wasn't wholly unexpected. I will not dispute that Feynman diagrams are extremely helpful tools for imagining the trajectories of light, but they are like trying to draw a detailed mandelbrot set using graph paper and hand calculations. While accurate, they are a woefully incomplete "approximation" of the reality, especially in regions as spacially dense as the center of galaxies. This is where we need to focus our attention, IMHO.

 

And yes, I know the theory is old, and that is my point. It is difficult to fathom why an assumption of "Big Bang" and "expansion" was kept when the orginal assumption (Doppler effect due to recession) which predicated both concepts was disgarded? Surely we don't want to dump the baby with the bathwater, but in this case we only kept the bathwater (the baby grew up and went into a career in Computer Science instead of Physics).

 

Thirdly to address Nicholas, who said:

If space-time is getting larger then it was once small.

Run expansion backwards and there is a begining at

a singularity. No way around it.

 

This is a weird comment, which is more than a bit confusing. I'm not sure the intent, but I'll bite... "larger" relative to what? "smaller" relative to what? If you run time "backwards" there cannot be a beginning because by this logic, if you are going backwards it presumes that any given moment is preceded. It is a paradox, no way around it. Therefore any theory of "Big Bang" must discard the notion of time, which is a predicate of every "Big Bang" theory by definition.

 

Finally to address "amazed"... heh! Wouldn't it be sad if a theory that made a wrong turn at Albequerque managed to cast such doubt on a theory as solid as GR just because we figured out how to blow things up?

 

I suspect that "expansion" observations are a relativistic effect due to the local field holding our galaxy together and changes in "expansion velocities" are artifacts of that field's history. I also suspect we will find much more interesting things at the center of the Milky Way than we will find staring at the "cosmic hum" of trillions of trillions of distant galaxies.

 

Did I miss anyone?