Does the idea of a "big bang" make any sense?

[Windevoid]

Does the idea of a "big bang" make any sense?

 

I don't know.

 

Haw can this alleged start of time occur when there wasn't any time before time in which it would start?

 

Is there like fifth dimensional hypertime or something?

[Leif]

Stephan Hawking introduced this idea in the sixties, and this was the start of his notoriety.

 

The theory predicts a decreasing rate of expansion leading to an inevitable collapse; yet instead of this result they are now observing an accelerated rate of expansion instead. And so the theory is likely fundamentally flawed and the useful predictability of it is not supported by observations.

 

Just my opinion.

 

[Strange]

Does the idea of a "big bang" make any sense?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Haw can this alleged start of time occur when there wasn't any time before time in which it would start?

 

The big bang theory doesn't say anything about a "start of time". It simply notes that the universe appears to be expanding (consistent with the predictions of General Relativity). You can "wind the clock back" and we see that early on the universe was denser and hotter than it is now. We see various sorts of evidence confirming that (CMB, proportion of hydrogen and helium, large-scale homogeneity/isotropy, etc).

 

You can, in principle, wind the clock back all the way to zero. But our current physics theories break down before that point so we don't know if it is realistic or not. There are dozens of theories, hypotheses and speculations about what might have happened at the earliest time (e.g. a "big bounce" as a previous universe collapsed, or "eternal inflation" where new universe are popping up all over the place, and so on).

Stephan Hawking introduced this idea in the sixties, and this was the start of his notoriety.

 

If you are thinking of the big bang, it pre-dates Hawking by a long way. The main developer of the idea was Lemaitre in the 1920s (I think).

 

Incidentally, Lemaitre was a great friend and drinking buddy of Hoyle who was opposed to the big bang and coined the name.

 

 

The theory predicts a decreasing rate of expansion leading to an inevitable collapse; yet instead of this result they are now observing an accelerated rate of expansion instead. And so the theory is likely fundamentally flawed and the useful predictability of it is not supported by observations.

 

Expansion, contraction, acceleration, decelaration are all compatible with the underlying theory. It just depends on things like the total energy density of the universe.

 

The theory is, currently, we supported by observation. And although alternatives have been proposed, none yet match all the evidence as well.

[Delbert]

Was the phrase 'big bang' used by a physicist?

 

It seems to me all we can see is that things are apparently moving apart. I also understand it has been shown that things are apparently moving apart faster now than previously. How do we know that? Because by looking far enough away we are looking at the very distant past. So, we look at the past which appears as a large shell surrounding us. And upon looking farther away we see further into the past, which is an even bigger shell surrounding us!

 

So, would I be taking things too far by saying that the past universe looks - nay, is - much larger than the present? And would it be too much to say the younger it is the bigger it was?

 

It seems to me we can't see the universe at all (as it is now), so how do we know what it's doing now?

Edited August 20, 2013 by Delbert

[Strange]

Was the phrase 'big bang' used by a physicist?

 

Yes, Fred Hoyle was an astrophysicist (some say he should have shared the Nobel prize for his work on stellar nucleosynthesis). He always preferred a steady-state model.

[ACG52]

The phrase as used by Holye was meant to be disparaging, but instead it caught on and became the popular description.

[Strange]

Possibly not:

Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_theory#Etymology

Edited August 20, 2013 by Strange

[imatfaal]

Although you cannot get his intonation from a transcript - it does not read as if Sir Fred is using ridicule or being disparaging

 

http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/special_collections/hoyle/exhibition/radio

[Leif]

Studiots idea that atoms cannot exist for long without the association of orbital electrons makes a keen argument for a steady state universe.

 

It is obvious that the overwhelming mass of the observable universe is in a plasma state with a disassociation of nuclei and electrons; and so I must assume this suggests a process opposing that of fusion.

 

And so this explanation would provide an opposite process working to break apart higher elements into more basic ones...there is then no reason to believe in a beginning or end...just a steady state?

[Strange]

Studiots idea that atoms cannot exist for long without the association of orbital electrons makes a keen argument for a steady state universe.

 

It is obvious that the overwhelming mass of the observable universe is in a plasma state with a disassociation of nuclei and electrons; and so I must assume this suggests a process opposing that of fusion.

 

I don't know where you got that idea. Ions or atomic nuclei in a plasma are just as stable as they are as atoms. Also, the overwhelming majority of plasma in the universe consists of hydrogen and helium, both stable element.s

 

 

And so this explanation would provide an opposite process working to break apart higher elements into more basic ones...there is then no reason to believe in a beginning or end...just a steady state?

 

Both fusion and fission occur naturally. Neither process creates new matter, which is what would be required by a steady state theory.

[Leif]

Stange,

 

Gamma rays passing through a magnetic field creates both chiral forms of matter. If fusion in the sun creates gamma rays, the sun has lots of magnetism, then I think creating matter should also be one of the energy pathways that occur...I think this is obvious?

 

Studiot suggests to me repeatedly that an atom cannot exist for long when stripped of it's electrons. I am quite well aware of hydrogen and helium, and I am skeptical of Studiots assertion. But I thought, and think it might be amusing to entertain his idea...that's all.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Leif

[Strange]

Gamma rays passing through a magnetic field creates both chiral forms of matter.

 

I don't really know what that means (both chiral forms of matter"?) but even if it is true, it is not "creating" matter; it is simply converting energy to matter. The total amount of energy-matter doesn't change.

 

 

Studiot suggests to me repeatedly that an atom cannot exist for long when stripped of it's electrons.

 

I assume he simply means that they cannot exist for long in that ionized state. Under normal conditions. Obviously, in a plasma they do exist in that state - and there is no increased rate of fusion or fission (otherwise neon lights would have been banned).

[Leif]

Strange,

 

Chirality bias exists on all levels of the Universe; in sub-atomic physics, in chemistry, in biology, and even at the large scale and extremely large scales of the universe. If you do not understand chirality, then I think you need to look into it because it is a fundamental property.

 

Chirality does seem to lead to asymmetries, and let me suggest to you that your existence itself is an asymmetry.

 

Edited August 22, 2013 by Leif

[Strange]

I know what chirality means (from having studied physical chemistry if nothing else). I just don't know what the phrase "both chiral forms of matter" is referring to.

[Leif]

Anti-particles are the enantiomorphic forms of baryonic matter.

 

[imatfaal]

Anti-particles are the enantiomorphic forms of baryonic matter.

 

 

Nope - you can get both left-chiral and right-chiral electrons and associated anti-particles the right-chiral and left-chiral positrons respectively. The anti-matter particles are the opposite chirality of the matter particle - but they are many more difference than that in addition. It is this fact that allows the weak interaction to be a chiral interaction - the Weak interaction acts only on left-handed particles and right-handed anti-particles (but not on right-handed particles nor lefthanded anti-particles.)

[Leif]

If you want top be obtuse then go right ahead, because you can go down that path to no end...it is a bottomless pit and you can always justify it easily!

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Leif,

 

Your posts have delved once agian into the realms of thread hijacking. This is to stop. If you would like to start a thread on your opinions (and if you haven't already done so), then please do. Be aware however, that you will be required to address people's criticisms with a little more than calling them obtuse.

[a_lexios]

Does the idea of a "big bang" make any sense?

 

I don't know.

 

Haw can this alleged start of time occur when there wasn't any time before time in which it would start?

 

Is there like fifth dimensional hypertime or something?

Windevoid, on 20 Aug 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

My understanding is that, in order for us to be able to wrap our minds around the idea of the "Big Bang" (or any other pertinent scientific theory) we first have to establish what a THEORY is:

 

I am quoting from Wikipedia: "A scientific theory is a WELL-SUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly CONFIRMED through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from HYPOTHESES that have been corroborated through the scientific method, and then gather EVIDENCE to TEST their accuracy."

 

Also, philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized that “a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of PREDICTIONS that could in principle be DISPROVED or FALSIFIED by OBSERVATION. Each time NEW experiments are observed to AGREE with the predictions the theory SURVIVES, and our confidence in it is INCREASED; but if ever a NEW observation is found to DISAGREE, we have to ABANDON or MODIFY the theory.”

 

Now, let's try to make a projection of this definition to a theory like the Big Bang: The Big Bang, is merely a model we have created in order to be able to explain what is happening in the universe - a hypothesis; and for as long as that hypothesis agrees with the observational data it will stand as a valid explanation of the nature and origins of our cosmos... Until…

 

• Stephen Hawkins, in his book 'A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME' sums it all up for us:

 

[ "This is just a MODEL of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that RELATE quantities in the MODEL, (***My Note: in other words the solutions to the mathematical equations comprising the model) to OBSERVATIONS that we make. IT EXISTS ONLY IN OUR MINDS AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER REALITY - WHATEVER THAT MIGHT MEAN" ]

 

I do hope that the above have slightly assisted in clarifying this matter, a little bit.

 

[Airbrush]

Does the idea of a "big bang" make any sense?

 

I don't know.

 

Haw can this alleged start of time occur when there wasn't any time before time in which it would start?

 

Is there like fifth dimensional hypertime or something?

 

The title of your post is absurd, as is the reasoning of your leading question. The Big Bang makes "any sense" CERTAINLY, since most experts in the field rely on the big bang as the leading theory. Are you an expert and have studied the theory in depth and still wonder how it makes "any sense"?

 

Of course nobody knows, these are theories, but the experts are somewhat satisfied with them, for now. Why can't you trust the experts?

 

"Haw can this alleged start of time occur when there wasn't any time before time in which it would start?"

 

Nobody knows, not even the experts.

 

"Is there like fifth dimensional hypertime or something?"

 

According to string theory, the big bang originated from a collision of higher dimensions. That seems reasonable to me. Imagine sheets hanging parallel on a clothes line, when the wind blows they make contact, but not at a single point, a large region makes contact. Such a collision could occur within a region of ANY size at all. That's why I question it when the experts say the entire observable universe was contained within a region smaller than a proton. The big bang could have originated in a huge region, even infinite in size.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Airbrush

[paulgoed]

I have a few questions about the validity of the big bang theory

1) does dark matter absorbed energy?

2) what would be the effect if it did and how would that be measured?

3) how would one determine the difference between a photon that is red shifted due to the expansion of space itself and a photon that has slowly lost energy into the background at a very fundamental level over very long periods of time? Are not particle energy and frequency related?

4) while I have not read anything on higher energy particles "red shifting" based upon the expansion of space, would not all particles be affected by the expansion of space (or absorption of energy into the background of space?)

 

The reason I am asking is my wondering if there is any way to determine if photons and other energetic particles slowly loose energy to the "dark matter". And if so, would not this be manifest in a general heating of the dark matter over very long periods of time; hence accounting for some of the expansion attributed to dark energy?

 

Maybe it is an open question - but does not the four laws of thermodynamics apply to the entire universe as a "whole?"

 

 

Is there any practical method of determining the amount of energy expelled in the entire universe by the stars and other solar events over long time frames and plot the energy expelled against the assumed expansion rate of the universe?

[WWLabRat]

"Is there like fifth dimensional hypertime or something?"

 

According to string theory, the big bang originated from a collision of higher dimensions. That seems reasonable to me. Imagine sheets hanging parallel on a clothes line, when the wind blows they make contact, but not at a single point, a large region makes contact. Such a collision could occur within a region of ANY size at all. That's why I question it when the experts say the entire observable universe was contained within a region smaller than a proton. The big bang could have originated in a huge region, even infinite in size.

 

I'm not sure that using the imagery of two sheets contacting in the wind would be an accurate assumption. Assuming these two parallel dimensions follow the same known laws of physics, they would have to move towards each other with some measurable amount of force. At the point they make contact, the force would push them both away with an equal and opposite amount of force. Looking at it this way shows that at the very moment of the creation of the universe, it would then be unmade because the dimensions would then separate. The same could be said if even if you showed that the sheets were porous enough to allow one to pass through the other. They still wouldn't mesh for any period of time because only one particle would be able to occupy any point in space at any given time.

[Airbrush]

"The reason I am asking is my wondering if there is any way to determine if photons and other energetic particles slowly loose energy to the dark matter."

 

How could dark matter have any influence if it is so etherial that it is not even detectible directly? Seems like the only influence dark matter can have on anything is gravity.

 

I'm not sure that using the imagery of two sheets contacting in the wind would be an accurate assumption. Assuming these two parallel dimensions follow the same known laws of physics, they would have to move towards each other with some measurable amount of force. At the point they make contact, the force would push them both away with an equal and opposite amount of force. Looking at it this way shows that at the very moment of the creation of the universe, it would then be unmade because the dimensions would then separate. The same could be said if even if you showed that the sheets were porous enough to allow one to pass through the other. They still wouldn't mesh for any period of time because only one particle would be able to occupy any point in space at any given time.

 

How can you even make assumptions about "higher dimensions"? They are beyond our physics. They are pre-big-bang conditions and events. All they did was CAUSE the big bang. After that, all bets are off about what the laws of physics will be.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Airbrush

[WWLabRat]

"The reason I am asking is my wondering if there is any way to determine if photons and other energetic particles slowly loose energy to the dark matter."

 

How could dark matter have any influence if it is so etherial that it is not even detectible directly? Seems like the only influence dark matter can have on anything is gravity.

 

How can you even make assumptions about "higher dimensions"? They are beyond our physics. They are pre-big-bang conditions and events. All they did was CAUSE the big bang. After that, all bets are off about what the laws of physics will be.

 

To be frank, isn't your assumption about "higher dimensions" just that, an assumption? I was basing my reply off of your assertion about these parallel dimension. All that we know at the moment are the current laws of physics. If new, credible data is presented that would alter what we already know, then I would be more than happy to change what I said. However until that point, I can only work with what we already know and have laid out.

[Airbrush]

 

To be frank, isn't your assumption about "higher dimensions" just that, an assumption? I was basing my reply off of your assertion about these parallel dimension. All that we know at the moment are the current laws of physics. If new, credible data is presented that would alter what we already know, then I would be more than happy to change what I said. However until that point, I can only work with what we already know and have laid out.

 

Yes this is all assumptions and speculations. I am not a string theory expert, but as I recall their argument was something to do with higher, as yet unknown, dimensions making contact that set off the big bang. Maybe a string theory expert can chime in here and help us out.