Big Bang question(s)

[Dekan]

 

That is the problem when talking about simultaneity of two spatially separated events... There isn't any "universal" frame of reference against which we can decide simultaneity, and attempting to do so in the local coordinate charts will lead to problems.

But isn't that idea only valid, in a "Steady State" Universe. In which there's no central "universal" point of origin. And therefore, no central reference point, from which to make "universal" temporal and spatial measurements.

 

That makes good sense in a Steady State Universe, which has always existed, spread out evenly and uniformly, through Time and Space. With no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.

 

However the currently fashionable Big Bang theory is different. It claims that the Universe started suddenly at a specific point in time, and from a specific central point.

 

Shouldn't this point provide a base, from which to make measurements?

Edited April 29, 2013 by Dekan

[imatfaal]

But isn't that idea only valid, in a "Steady State" Universe. In which there's no central "universal" point of origin. And therefore, no central reference point, from which to make "universal" temporal and spatial measurements.

 

That makes good sense in a Steady State Universe, which has always existed, spread out evenly and uniformly, through Time and Space. With no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.

 

However the currently fashionable Big Bang theory is different. It claims that the Universe started suddenly at a specific point in time, and from a specific central point.

 

Shouldn't this point provide a base, from which to make measurements?

 

 

You are badly misrepresenting big bang theory.

 

The big bang expansion and inflation is a universal expansion of space - and is definitively NOT an explosion; the whole of space expanded, everything away from each other. You cannot think of this as an explosion of a point into space - it is a massive increase of space between every original bit of space.

 

There is no centre of the universe - if there were we would note that some equidistant galaxitic clusters were racing away from us (those ahead of us) , others keeping pace (those along side), and yet others moving away more slowly (those behind us) BUT this is not the case from observations. What we do see is that galaxtic clusters that are equidistant from us are all moving away at the same pace.

[Dekan]

So if there's no centre of the Universe, how can the Universe be expanding?

 

Won't it always be the same size?

Edited April 29, 2013 by Dekan

[swansont]

So if there's no centre of the Universe, how can the Universe be expanding?

 

Won't it always be the same size?

A 2-D analogue is the surface of a balloon. As you blow it up, the surface gets bigger. However, there is no center of the surface.

[krash661]

I'm not sure how " if there's no centre of the Universe ",

means,

not be able to measure expansion.

 

for me you have to explain this thought.

[Markus Hanke]

But isn't that idea only valid, in a "Steady State" Universe.

 

No, it is valid in general for any Lorentzian 4-manifold. You cannot, in general, cover such a manifold with just one coordinate chart; physically that means that there is no universal frame of reference. This would hold both in a "Steady State" as well as an expanding universe. Also, as other posters have quite correctly pointed out, there is no "centre point" to such a manifold.

[Dekan]

Obviously, the absurd "Big Bang" theory has been a passing idea. Destined to be laughed at by future astronomers.

 

You wanna bet that a modified "Steady State" theory will be orthodox in 2030?

[imatfaal]

Obviously, the absurd "Big Bang" theory has been a passing idea. Destined to be laughed at by future astronomers. You wanna bet that a modified "Steady State" theory will be orthodox in 2030?

 

You have, a couple of posts ago, demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the big bang - you need to be able to comprehend the ideas of a theory to be able to validly critique it

[Dekan]

Well, even Einstein didn't accept the Big Bang, that's why he introduced the Cosmological Constant, so I think he and I are right.

[swansont]

Well, even Einstein didn't accept the Big Bang, that's why he introduced the Cosmological Constant, so I think he and I are right.

 

Didn't accept it the same way that Newton didn't: they preceded the idea. The discovery of expansion happened after Einstein rigged his equation to be steady-state.

[Delta1212]

Well, even Einstein didn't accept the Big Bang, that's why he introduced the Cosmological Constant, so I think he and I are right.

 

He also called that the greatest blunder of his career.

[Airbrush]

Well, even Einstein didn't accept the Big Bang, that's why he introduced the Cosmological Constant, so I think he and I are right.

Einstein accepted the Big Bang AFTER Hubble discovered that the Milky Way was only one of Billions of galaxies.

[MigL]

Even after many people have just finished correcting all your misconceptions about the Big Bang, you keep right on believing that its a flawed theory which will be replaced by a modified Steady State.

 

Really ???

 

Did you even bother to read their posts Dekan ?

[krash661]

Einstein accepted the Big Bang AFTER Hubble discovered that the Milky Way was only one of Billions of galaxies.

UMMm,

 

hst was carried into orbit by a Space Shuttle in 1990

einstein's death was April 18, 1955

 

is there another hubble i do not know about ?

edit-

 

ahh, never mind you are referring to hubble him self,

i apologize, i misunderstood there.

Edited April 30, 2013 by krash661

[imatfaal]

UMMm,

 

hst was carried into orbit by a Space Shuttle in 1990

einstein's death was April 18, 1955

 

is there another hubble i do not know about ?

edit-

 

ahh, never mind you are referring to hubble him self,

i apologize, i misunderstood there.

 

 

Your edit is correct. Edwin Hubble was an amazing observer and experimenter - he took theory forward massively by noting, understanding, and beginning to explain new and unexpected observations. Before Hubble the mainstream belief was that the Milky Way was the entire universe - he showed that certain stars were far too distant to be part of our own little galaxy. He also showed later that there is a rough linear relationship between the distance of an observed star and the redshift of that star - which shows that the steady state cosmology is flawed. The amazing technological achievement that is the Hubble Space Telescope is named after Edwin Hubble - fitting as he is perhaps the finest observer of the modern age.

[michel123456]

(...)

 

However the currently fashionable Big Bang theory is different. It claims that the Universe started suddenly at a specific point in time, and from a specific central point.

(...)

(emphasize mine)

The current Big Bang Theory states that the things in the Universe appeared roughly where they are today. Dispersed everywhere.

Not far away and not at a central point.

[Dekan]

Thanks michael. But doesn't BB Theory state that everything in the Universe started from a tiny original particle? Which was smaller than any particle known today. Smaller than an electron, for example. Yet this sub-electron-sized speck, somehow contained within it trillions of trillions of trillions of electrons. Not to mention quarks and gluons. And these all burst out, and created the massive structures that we see today.

 

Like the Earth, Jupiter, the Sun, the whole Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy, all the other Galaxies - billions of them - huge arrays of matter - and all from a tiny BB seed smaller than an electron?

 

It does sound a bit unlikely, don't you think? I mean, really! I hesitate to mention angels dancing on pinheads, but that's what it looks like. Not Science, but Theology.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Dekan

[swansont]

Thanks michael. But doesn't BB Theory state that everything in the Universe started from a tiny original particle?

 

Tiny original particle? No.

 

 

 

It does sound a bit unlikely, don't you think? I mean, really! I hesitate to mention angels dancing on pinheads, but that's what it looks like. Not Science, but Theology.

 

Lots of science sounds unlikely, especially if you are unfamiliar with the theories and evidence. Time isn't universal? Particles can be in two states as once? Continents move? The earth moves around the sun, and not the other way around?

 

"It sounds unlikely to me"? Don't bring a nerf™-sword to a gunfight.

[MigL]

You're right Dekan, your interpretation of the Big Bang sounds extremely unlikely.

 

The scientifically accepted version, however, not so much. It is however a theory, which although not proven, has substantial observational backing and certainly deserves further development, unlike the 'dead' Steady-State theory.

 

For the correct interpretation of the Big Bang theory, either consult an elementary cosmology text, or take the information given to you by some of the members of this board. You'll soon find out which are the educated and knowledgeable ones and which are the cranks with no scientific background, just trying to peddle their speculative ( but wrong ) theories.

[michel123456]

Thanks michael. But doesn't BB Theory state that everything in the Universe started from a tiny original particle? Which was smaller than any particle known today. Smaller than an electron, for example. Yet this sub-electron-sized speck, somehow contained within it trillions of trillions of trillions of electrons. Not to mention quarks and gluons. And these all burst out, and created the massive structures that we see today.

 

Like the Earth, Jupiter, the Sun, the whole Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy, all the other Galaxies - billions of them - huge arrays of matter - and all from a tiny BB seed smaller than an electron?

 

It does sound a bit unlikely, don't you think? I mean, really! I hesitate to mention angels dancing on pinheads, but that's what it looks like. Not Science, but Theology.

I am not an advocate of the BBT.

Most, if not all defensors of the BBT support the idea that the Big Bang happened everywhere.

However even an eminent scientist like Alan Guth the father of the Inflation Theory is embarrassed when asked the question of the "tiny original particle".

See the below, at the end of part three.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2013 by michel123456

[krash661]

this maybe irrelevant but nevertheless awesome.

 

http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/stars/

 

take the tour,

i can not describe how useful this is amongst other things and such.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

David Levy's anti-big bang (anti most of cosmology actually) notion has been split off to its own thread in Speculations. The OT of this thread is the scientific and logical questioning of a very difficult and counterintuitive theory and the challenge of understanding the big bang idea better; not the promotion of a personal hypothesis, please try and keep it that way.

 

New thread here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74857-mass-creation-spiral-galaxies-the-big-bang/

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

David Levy's continued argument moved and attached to the above mentioned thread in Speculations.