Did the bing bang actually happen?

[tmdarkmatter]

According to the current model, an almost infinite amount of mass was compressed to a small dot, but inflation is granted the special privilege to separate mass that is more compressed than a black hole with a much stronger gravity in order to create galaxies with similar characteristics than the milky way in less than 300 million years (while the Milky Way makes 1-2 spins)?

According to the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above), so why are we making this huge exception for the tiny big bang?

Why would inflation separate a huge black hole back then and not now, if dilation is exponential? It would not even be able to exceed the little force holding together our milky way?

[JustJoe]

7 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

According to the current model, an almost infinite amount of mass was compressed to a small dot,

Hello , I'm not totally clued up but I don't think the big bang theory says that . It says something like the universe started from a high temperature , high density state . It doesn't mention infinite as far I know . There is also lots of evidence apparently . 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by JustJoe

[tmdarkmatter]

Well, infinite is a strong word. That´s why I used the term "almost infinite". 

[JustJoe]

5 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Well, infinite is a strong word. That´s why I used the term "almost infinite". 

I am not great with wording either but almost infinite isn't possible because there is no end to something that is infinite . 

I think a highly dense state is the big bang wording and if you put your own words in , some people on here may not understand your question . Also you mention blackholes , I don't think the big bang mentions black holes either FYI . 

[tmdarkmatter]

So, an all-knowing scientist/prophet has written the holy text of the big bang theory and we should all believe, because those who do not believe in the exact wording shall be punished. Intepretations of the holy words are not allowed, nor any type of criticism, especially, if you are not familiar with the higher spheres of cosmology and do not hold a certain title granted by exclusive members of this high society. Is this the science we deserve after paying our taxes? Lol (common, this is a little joke, please laugh)

[JustJoe]

13 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

So, an all-knowing scientist/prophet has written the holy text of the big bang theory and we should all believe, because those who do not believe in the exact wording shall be punished. Intepretations of the holy words are not allowed, nor any type of criticism, especially, if you are not familiar with the higher spheres of cosmology and do not hold a certain title granted by exclusive members of this high society. Is this the science we deserve after paying our taxes? Lol (common, this is a little joke, please laugh)

It really isn't like that at all . A scientist or scientists  had an idea that over time they turned it into a theory by supporting evidence and general concensus . We all know that the big bang theory may not be exact but so far it is the best available theory unless you know one better ? 

In science they aren't really that bothered about a beginning because the present is always more important . You don't pay taxes  for theories such as the big bang , you pay taxes for medical science and many other science applications that have real world uses . 

Your device you are communicating on now is a product of science and research for example . 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by JustJoe

[Mordred]

As mentioned the BB model starts at a hot dense state from 10^{-43) forward. It does not describe what caused the BB itself. Infinitesimal crop into the mathematics before the time above.

 The FLRW metric is valid for the entire expansion history. The FLRW metric is well supported by the observational evidence. Starting from a BH isn't part of the model thar is simply one of the many alternative models to describe how it started. 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Mordred

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

As mentioned the BB model starts at a hot dense state from 10^{-43) forward. It does not describe what caused the BB itself. Infinitesimal crop into the mathematics before the time above.

 The FLRW metric is valid for the entire expansion history. The FLRW metric is well supported by the observational evidence.

 

Alan Guth has it put this way:

[Intoscience]

58 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

an almost infinite amount of mass was compressed to a small dot

What is almost infinite?

Ok, that aside, it is not certain that there was "mass" in the way we understand it before 10-⁴³ seconds after the inflation began. Also it is theorised that space and time came into existence at this point. Basically, it could be that the current laws came into existence also, which means we have no way of even beginning to understand prior to the BB if "prior" to even means anything in this context either. 

Definitely a head batterer!  

[JustJoe]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

. Also it is theorised that space and time came into existence at this point.

I have heard that too but it doesn't seem right that there could be a hot dense state without any space . Where would this hot dense state be ? 

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

I have heard that too but it doesn't seem right that there could be a hot dense state without any space . Where would this hot dense state be ? 

Nowhere, 

This sounds absurd I know,  but the hot dense state came into existence at the same time as spacetime and rapidly expanded, like really rapidly. Its hard for us to conceptualise something that is beyond our imagination and/or descriptions.   

[Mordred]

Well first off atoms didn't exist yet they come later. The particles of the SM were in a state called thermal equilibrium. I'm essence they are so energetic and short lived that individual particles cannot be distinguished from one another  (similar to a Bose Einstein condensate state).

 You can't think of mass being some weight or matter object  mass is  resistance to inertia change. It is a property objects, states, fields have not a thing unto itself

 

 

[JustJoe]

Just now, Intoscience said:

Nowhere, 

This sounds absurd I know,  but the hot dense state came into existence at the same time as spacetime and rapidly expanded, like really rapidly. Its hard for us to conceptualise something that is beyond our imagination and/or descriptions.   

I can conceptualise the big bang but not without there being space . I actually think the author messed up , they should of said there was the absence of light and matter rather than the absence of space which is absurd in my opinion . 

A hot dense state has to occur somewhere is my belief because nowhere doesn't exist . 

 

[Genady]

Space existed at the time of BB (the "~10^-43" point). The BB has happened everywhere in that space.

[JustJoe]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Space existed at the time of BB (the "~10^-43" point). The BB has happened everywhere in that space.

Right , so you are saying a tiny tiny portion of space existed before the big bang that was surrounded by nowhere ? 

Sorry but it sounds absurd because it is absurd . Nobody can prove that nowhere ever ''existed'' , it is more likely that there was somewhere meaning lots more space than a tiny tiny portion . 

[Genady]

Just now, JustJoe said:

Right , so you are saying a tiny tiny portion of space existed before the big bang that was surrounded by nowhere ? 

Sorry but it sounds absurd because it is absurd . Nobody can prove that nowhere ever ''existed'' , it is more likely that there was somewhere meaning lots more space than a tiny tiny portion . 

I said nothing about nowhere.

I said nothing about the size, either.

[JustJoe]

Just now, Genady said:

I said nothing about nowhere.

Those who imply space itself started from the big bang are implying before the big bang nowhere existed , i.e there was no space . 

Yourself implied a tiny spec of space that outside of that tiny spec was no space , nowhere . 

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

I can conceptualise the big bang but not without there being space . I actually think the author messed up , they should of said there was the absence of light and matter rather than the absence of space which is absurd in my opinion . 

The fact that you can't conceptualise something, doesn't have any effect on the reality. If you are thinking of space as absolutely nothing, then there is obviously an infinity of that. But in my understanding, "space" is not nothing. It has properties that define three or four dimensions, and can allow transfer energy and matter across those dimensions. From what I've read, space is expanding now, and expanded rapidly in the early stages of the big bang. So projecting backwards, it seems to have come from nothing.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

Those who imply space itself started from the big bang are implying before the big bang nowhere existed , i.e there was no space . 

Yourself implied a tiny spec of space that outside of that tiny spec was no space , nowhere . 

I said nothing about before BB, nothing about starting of space, and didn't imply "tiny" or "outside". 

[JustJoe]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

 From what I've read, space is expanding now, and expanded rapidly in the early stages of the big bang. So projecting backwards, it seems to have come from nothing.

From what I have read there is no evidence that space is expanding or has ever expanded in any way . There is evidence by the Hubble observation that observable matter is receding away from our observation position . Space itself isn't observable by any means because it does not emit or reflect light . 

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

I said nothing about before BB, nothing about starting of space, and didn't imply "tiny" or "outside". 

''Space existed at the time of BB (the "~10^-43" point). The BB has happened everywhere in that space.''

I thought you did imply this , perhaps I misunderstood your post , my apologies . 

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

''Space existed at the time of BB (the "~10^-43" point). The BB has happened everywhere in that space.''

I thought you did imply this , perhaps I misunderstood your post , my apologies . 

Apology accepted. Perhaps I should've clarified that the "point" I've mentioned is a "point in time". 

[JustJoe]

Just now, Genady said:

Apology accepted. Perhaps I should've clarified that the "point" I've mentioned is a "point in time". 

In my opinion time is only relative to matter and in regards to the point in time you provided , I see that as related to the expansion of the dense state rather than the space . 

m/V  rather than m/0 if there is no space . 🤔

 

 

[Genady]

I'm talking about time coordinate that appears in a space-time metric.

[JustJoe]

Just now, Genady said:

I'm talking about time coordinate that appears in a space-time metric.

I understand time is a dimension and the expansion is equal and proportional to the time dimension . Within nanoseconds of the BB , the hot dense state had gained a volume and this is what I'm talking about . There is no need to imply that space had gained a volume ? 

[tmdarkmatter]

But what I wanted to add here is that most scientists confirm that there is an expansion of the universe going on right now and that therefore there must have been a bing bang some time ago. But this idea of expansion and big bang is only based on the red shifting of galaxies. But, as shown in the Pound-Rebka experiment, light is also being red shifted by gravity.

If galaxies are being red shifted because they are moving away from us, shouldn´t the light from the sun be more red shifted in the evening than in the morning? Shouldn´t stars like Sirius be more red shifted when our planet moves away from it on its journey around the sun? Shouldn´t the Andromeda galaxy be more red shifted when we move away from it in our journey around the center of the milky way? I know that you will now say that all these movements should be ignored, but if you compare the speed of our galaxy with the speed of the Andromeda galaxy towards us, there must certainly be some kind of observable red shifting, but this was not reported anywhere. But the blue shifting of Andromeda is being reported everywhere.

On the other hand, Pound-Rebka could measure the red-shifting caused by some 20 meters of gravity well in the Harvard tower?

I hope you understand that something seems to be wrong here and this can be the final refutation of the big bang theory. Maybe all the red shifting of the galaxies is only generated by the effect of gravity (by a mechanism we do not know yet) and all the galaxies might not be moving fast enough or moving in the wrong directions to reflect any type of big bang.

 

I want to tell people that we would be nicer to scientists (and scientists to themselves) if they make a mistake. Do you really think that Einstein never made mistakes? I think that scientists should not be afraid of publishing something that might be wrong and of being punished for that, or of a damage to their reputation. This would cause science and mankind to not advance. The universe is very difficult to explain, especially the big bang or if there was a beginning of this universe. We also do not know what time, space, mass, gravity, light actually is. So I think that we do not need some perfect "smartest guy on this planet" heroes. Instead, I would prefer people who make mistakes and even admit it when they make a mistake, without getting punished for that. Are these times so crazy that mistakes are no longer allowed? (just think about what happened during the last 3 years)