Questioning The Standard Model

[killafur]

Hello reader, my name is Kyle Smith. I've only recently started to search for those who I can share my ideas with. So far, my search has led me here. I have many ideas on many things, but I would like to start from the beginning. It seems as if the scientific community is leaving an important factor to the equation of the theory of the formation of the universe out. What if the beginning is wrong? In my opinion, we are putting too much into what we "think" we know. Countless times in history mankind has "known". In a not too distant past, the world being flat was taken as a known fact, and I'm sure equations of that time would have showed it as well. If they would have only taken some of what they know and guessed the rest, early scientists may have formulated a closer hypothesis to what is actually true. Sorry for the bashing, but my point conveys why: Say they took the fact that the sky appears to curve away from you, and add in an unprovable factor, or a guess: Sky being curved+knowledge of how round things work "the guess"=If you were to travel in a staight line on the surface of a round object, you will at some point reach the place in which you started. Hence, the world is round. Now keep thinking on those lines and move ahead to current day. We take something we know about physics presently, and add our unprovable "guess": We know that from atoms to galaxies, things orbit things and things evolve, or change, in some way. So why can't our "universe" be something that started as a cloud of something, say "pre-energy", that orbits something else? I know that would mean that gravity, space, and time would have already been there, but it makes sense. It's also simple. Plus, I think that time is only a label. Nothing else. That's a totally different topic though. Within my idea, many things can be answered. Starting with dark flow. Through my idea, the existance of a multiverse system is completely possible. It could also mean that the action that created our universe was so violent it could have altered gravity, or even change its state since gravity was already there. Which would explain why galaxies are moving apart, or dark energy. Maybe it's an altered state of gravity, and not energy at all. With that being said, even as I'm writing this I am refining my ideas. So, I apologize if I am too vague to make a valid argument. Or, that I am really jumping around within the topic. There's just so much to cover. But, I'll wrap this up for now. I look forward to responses.

[pwagen]

Within my idea, many things can be answered.

But can they be tested?

 

I think whatever standard model(s) scientists are working with now, are worked on simply because they seem to fit best with our observations of reality. Mainstream science is definitely not guesswork.Surely some theories are wrong in some aspect, or maybe totally wrong. But that's okay, because the more research is being done, the closer we are to a definite theory that describes the universe correctly.

[killafur]

Can they be tested? Not yet. Unfortunately. My hopes are that whoever reads my post may get a different perspective. Who knows? Maybe someone who has the capabilities, may read that and try it in a model. Dreaming. I know lol. But, even someone to help me refine my currently scattered thoughts would suffice. I agree that mainstream science is definitely not guesswork, but early theories are. The beauty of science is that it can evolve; as the things it studies does. Any comments on the fundamentals?

[pantheory]

killafur,

...What if the beginning is wrong?

Many believe that a BB beginning is wrong. A few theorists believe that the entire BB model is wrong. This is no surprise to anyone.

.

...So why can't our "universe" be something that started as a cloud of something, say "pre-energy", that orbits something else? I know that would mean that gravity, space, and time would have already been there, but it makes sense. It's also simple...

One could make such a proposal but for what reason? and what evidence would there be to make such a proposal.

 

Obviously any evidence against the standard BB model is not strong enough to dissuade very many , otherwise there would not be so many theorists that believe in this model, right or wrong.

Edited July 6, 2011 by pantheory

[Bignose]

Can they be tested? Not yet.

 

Then, quite simply, you are not doing anything scientific. You are writing a story.

 

Testability and Falsifiability is a major tenant in doing scientific work.

 

The standard model is what it is because of the evidence that supports it. That is, the test results that agree with the predictions the standard model makes. It certainly isn't perfect, but unless a new model can replicate and expand on every prediction that can be made today, why would one even think about throwing out a model that makes successful predictions?

Edited July 6, 2011 by Bignose

[md65536]

If your model predicts some observations simply or more accurately than the standard model, that's great, but for a model to replace the standard model it would pretty much have to predict all known observations that fit the standard model. The weird or complicated stuff is usually there because of specific observations.

 

In your example, the round-earth model is better than the flat-earth model, but the round-earth model still predicted all the observations that had been made which had fit the flat-earth model.

 

 

(One possible way around this would be the discovery of some new evidence that trumps all existing observations. If for example someone from antiquity had a round-earth model that predicted that the oceans would fall off the planet, this flawed model should still be preferable to a flat-earth model given the evidence of someone traveling into space and observing that the Earth is in fact round. I can't imagine what possible observations might disprove the standard model. "Many things can be answered" alone would not do that. For "many things can be answered", you'd want a model that is pretty compatible with the standard model and all its complications.)

[ajb]

We are talking about the standard model of cosmology, this is the Lambda CDM model. Generally there is good evidence supporting this model and it seems to match nature closer than other proposed models.

[md65536]

Can they be tested? Not yet. Unfortunately. My hopes are that whoever reads my post may get a different perspective. Who knows? Maybe someone who has the capabilities, may read that and try it in a model.

My experience is that no one cares.

Turning an idea into a theory will likely take a LOT of work, and no one's going to volunteer to do that work unless you can express an idea that sparks someone's desire to care.

If anyone's going to be voluntarily putting work in, it will probably have to be you. In the course of doing this work, you'll learn a lot about existing science, which will greatly change your ideas. You'll learn how to better express your ideas, and how to evaluate them. Chances are you'll throw away more than you keep (always adding more ideas and always throwing away most of them).

 

Improving the standard model could take a lifetime of dedicated work, without any guarantee of success.

 

When we non-formally-trained-scientists start out, we don't know how to express our ideas, we don't know of or understand the existing ideas we're competing against, and we don't know how to work with our ideas. All in all, it's very little to offer someone who already has all those abilities.

 

 

But uh... keep working at it! Great scientific ideas will come from non-scientists. It is our challenge to improve the ideas until we can convince someone to care. A good idea might still inspire others, while inspiring yourself to work on it.

 

Whether you spend a few minutes thinking about it now and then, or turn it into a serious lifelong work, you won't know the value of the outcome until you do it.

Edited July 6, 2011 by md65536

[ajb]

Great scientific ideas will come from non-scientists. It is our challenge to improve the ideas until we can convince someone to care. A good idea might still inspire others, while inspiring yourself to work on it.

 

You might be interested in a blog entry of mine Can an “amateur” today make useful contributions to theoretical physics or mathematics?

 

In sort I am generally pessimistic on this subject.

[mississippichem]

You might be interested in a blog entry of mine Can an “amateur” today make useful contributions to theoretical physics or mathematics?

 

In sort I am generally pessimistic on this subject.

 

I am extremely pessimistic on this matter. However, I think it is still important to encourage people to have ideas...for the bright ones it can lead to a chain of events that might get them interested in pursuing science professionally. All of us had stupid questions/ideas at one point, I know I did. Not to say we should encourage rampant speculation without regard for math or experiment. I just mean that its good anyone is thinking about such questions at all these days when most of our youth would rather think of Lady Gaga.

[killafur]

you'd want a model that is pretty compatible with the standard model and all its complications.)

 

Completely agree. Everything after BB is fine. We know what things did. Where it came from is what bothers me. When we can scan, or even see past, the edge of the universe, I believe we'll find the proof. There has to be left overs. As for the current singularity predictions and the equations associated, there still seems to be the constant flaw of our complex brain. That being, having an alpha and omega thought process; still having that godly creation type beginning. Sounds an awful lot like when we thought the earth was the center of the "universe". Why are we so special that even the space we reside in was made when we were? Our energy may be 13.6-14.2 billion years old. But, is the space? When we make space, time and gravity a constant, energy starts to become a normal acting item. Say at first "ignition", the raw material our energy came from was just too volatile. Big Bang takes place, and the energy tries again.

 

On a side note:

I would really like to thank everyone for their reponses. Even criticism is very helpful. I apologize to those who I couldn't cover today, but I will try to keep up with my end of the banter. I think the more I explain myself, the more it will become clear as to: Why? What for? And, who cares?