Location of Big Bang?

[mustang292]

I think that what began in the big bang will end in a big crunch. The site of the big bang is the center of mass, such that the remaining mass will return to the center in the big crunch.

 

 

In an issue of Time magazine I Read that we had determined that the Universe will be ever expanding until even one atom will be the size of a Planet. I understand the science behind that. Your Crunch theory has been determined to be wrong already.

 

I believe that the Universe however vast it is, does have an edge that is ever expanding, and we may never be able to see the edge with our telescopes. (Wow, then again, we may be so far from the original big bang that we could never locate it either. I think I just answered my own question.) And Thanks reverse I liked your analogy.

[mustang292]

I think that what began in the big bang will end in a big crunch. The site of the big bang is the center of mass, such that the remaining mass will return to the center in the big crunch.

 

 

In an issue of Time magazine I Read that we had determined that the Universe will be ever expanding until even one atom will be the size of a Planet. I understand the science behind that. Your Crunch theory has been determined to be wrong already.

 

I believe that the Universe however vast it is, does have an edge that is ever expanding, and we may never be able to see the edge with our telescopes. (Wow, then again, we may be so far from the original big bang that we could never locate it either. I think I just answered my own question.) And Thanks reverse I liked your analogy.

[Cadmus]

Do you think that the universe is not infinite? I don't see how that could work.

I think that time is infinite, but that space is finite. How is it that this could not work?

[Cadmus]

In an issue of Time magazine I Read that we had determined that the Universe will be ever expanding until even one atom will be the size of a Planet.

I contend that no scientist has determined aboslutely that this is the case.

 

Your Crunch theory has been determined to be wrong already.

I contend that you misunderstand. Such a theory is not currently in the mainstream. However, it has never been determined that such an idea is completely beyond possibility. There is a big difference between out of the current mainstream, as this idea is, and completely impossible, as you have come to accept.

[Severian]

I contend that you misunderstand. Such a theory is not currently in the mainstream. However' date=' it has never been determined that such an idea is completely beyond possibility. There is a big difference between out of the current mainstream, as this idea is, and completely impossible, as you have come to accept.[/quote']

 

WMAP have shown that the Big Crunch does not fit the data: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_limits.html

 

For the theory that fits our data' date=' the Universe will expand forever.

[/quote']

[YT2095]

if every peice is suposed to be moving away from every other peice, the only way this could ever be possible is to push from a center position outwards.

 

any other configuration would be bringing some peices closer together.

 

basic logic and geometry shows this to be the case.

[swansont]

1. How is this relevant?

 

2. The surface of a sphere is not an ideal example of a 2D surface.

 

It's relevant because it's an example that disproves the idea that everything has a center. It doesn't need to be an ideal example, just an example.

[Cadmus]

WMAP have shown that the Big Crunch does not fit the data: [url']http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_limits.html[/url]

Current theory places less probability on a big crunch. However, the fact that partial data with a high degree of bias does not currently make a big crunch the most likely scenario cannot, and does not among scientists, completely rule out the possibility with any high degree of absoluteness.

[Cadmus]

It's relevant because it's an example that disproves the idea that everything has a center. It doesn't need to be an ideal example, just an example.

OK. However, when I consider your example, I am free to recognize that what you call a 2d surface is actually a 3d surface, and therefore I may treat it as a 3d surface, such that I can find a center. In other words, I do not need to recognize, and I do not so recognize, your contention that this proves what you claim it proves.

[J.C.MacSwell]

OK. However, when I consider your example, I am free to recognize that what you call a 2d surface is actually a 3d surface, and therefore I may treat it as a 3d surface, such that I can find a center. In other words, I do not need to recognize, and I do not so recognize, your contention that this proves what you claim it proves.

 

Are you claiming then, that space has a center, but not necessarily (personally I would suggest necessarily not) at any point in space?

[swansont]

OK. However, when I consider your example, I am free to recognize that what you call a 2d surface is actually a 3d surface, and therefore I may treat it as a 3d surface, such that I can find a center. In other words, I do not need to recognize, and I do not so recognize, your contention that this proves what you claim it proves.

 

How is it 3-D? I can locate any point on the surface with 2 orthogonal coordinates. It has only two dimensions.

[Cadmus]

Are you claiming then, that space has a center, but not necessarily (personally I would suggest necessarily not) at any point in space?

No. I am claiming that it is likely that space has a center, and that the center is at the site of the big bang, which will be the site of the big crunch.

[Cadmus]

How is it 3-D? I can locate any point on the surface with 2 orthogonal coordinates. It has only two dimensions.

You are completely correct. If you completely ignore the third dimension, as you would do, then what is left is as you say, a 2 dimensioal surface. My point is that I do not consider that you are in this case justified in ignoring the 3rd dimension. I think that if you fudge the numbers just a bit to make an example that is much easier to work with, it will not have the same validity as a model that supports the evidence in a more thorough way, and in this case that fudging the data to make it behave as a 2d surface loses exactly that data which would disprove your theory. Just my opinion, of course.

[J.C.MacSwell]

No. I am claiming that it is likely that space has a center, and that the center is at the site of the big bang, which will be the site of the big crunch.

 

Well that would be right where I'm sitting then. It went for a drive this morning but now it's back. It's the only preferred reference point I'm aware of.

[Severian]

Current theory places less probability on a big crunch. However, the fact that partial data with a high degree of bias does not currently make a big crunch the most likely scenario cannot, and does not among scientists, completely rule out the possibility with any high degree of absoluteness.

 

You are correct to a certain extent. Once can never prove that that the density is exactly 1 and any value of Omega>1 would eventually lead to a Big Crunch. Nut WMAP's number is:

 

[math]\Omega_{tot} = 1.0 \pm 0.02 [/math]

 

This looks pretty conclusively 1 to me. If it is not exactly 1, it is up to you to explain why it isn't 1 but is so damn close to it. Since this is a fine-tuning problem, the Big Crunch is on shaky ground...

[Cadmus]

This looks pretty conclusively 1 to me. If it is not exactly 1, it is up to you to explain why it isn't 1 but is so damn close to it. Since this is a fine-tuning problem, the Big Crunch is on shaky ground...

I disagree with you. It is not up to me to explain this to your satisfaction. The data on which your numbers are based is shaky at best. There are numerous fudge factors that represent unknowns. The data is sketchy and incomplete. You are on good ground taking your numbers as a good guide, but you enter very shaky ground if accept that this is most likely the absolute truth and the absolute last word on the subject. Furthermore, it is not fair of you to demand that I supply evidence only in the form that you are willing to accept it in order for my theory to have any potential validity. When 90% of the universe is considered to be made up of phenomena labeled "dark", this is a sure sign that much is not known, and our current understanding is not absolute. I have never read a high caliber scientist claim outright that there is no possibility that the big crunch idea could make a comeback. Have you? Furthermore, how qualified are you to determine what evidence is acceptable and what evidence is not?

 

I have no problem with you holding an opinion that is very different from mine. But for you to demand that it is up to me to provide evidence in a form that fits your model is not an approach that I feel compelled to comply with.

 

This looks pretty conclusively 1 to me.

Are you seriously suggesting that you have sufficient data, and that you are sufficiently qualified to analyze the data on your own, such that you can state categorically that the data is conclusive and the concept of a big crunch absolutely has a 0% possibility of being in our future?

[Severian]

I disagree with you. It is not up to me to explain this to your satisfaction. The data on which your numbers are based is shaky at best. There are numerous fudge factors that represent unknowns. The data is sketchy and incomplete. You are on good ground taking your numbers as a good guide' date=' but you enter very shaky ground if accept that this is most likely the absolute truth and the absolute last word on the subject.

[/quote']

 

The data is not at all shaky! This is a proper professional well respected experiment. Sure assumptions are made but they are the same assumptions upon which your belief in the Big Crunch is made. If we take your assertion of the Big Crunch and ask what experiment value of Omega this would lead to, one gets 1+-0.02. You really have no choice but to accept this number, and if you do not accept it then we have to ask if you would ever accept any evidence in condtradiction with your belief?

 

Furthermore, it is not fair of you to demand that I supply evidence only in the form that you are willing to accept it in order for my theory to have any potential validity.

 

Yes it is. If you advocate a theory it is up to you to explain any data which contradicts your theory. In this case, your Big Crunch hypothesis does not explain why Omega is so close to one. The flat hypothesis does (inflation).

 

I have never read a high caliber scientist claim outright that there is no possibility that the big crunch idea could make a comeback. Have you? Furthermore, how qualified are you to determine what evidence is acceptable and what evidence is not?

 

Clearly the probability of a 'come back' is not 0, but it is very small indeed. I would not bet any money on a Big Crunch.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that you have sufficient data, and that you are sufficiently qualified to analyze the data on your own, such that you can state categorically that the data is conclusive and the concept of a big crunch absolutely has a 0% possibility of being in our future?

 

We have sufficient data and yes I am sufficiently qualified to analyze that data (although I haven't in detail) such that I can state categorically that the data is conclusive in saying that the Big Crunch (in the sense that you mean) is a very unlikely hypothesis. (I am a little bit cagey here since even Omega=1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 would eventually lead to a big crunch, but that would not be acceptable in the theory which you are advocating because it would be fine-tuned.)

[Cadmus]

The data is not at all shaky! This is a proper professional well respected experiment. Sure assumptions are made but they are the same assumptions upon which your belief in the Big Crunch is made.

Here is another assumption on your part of the type that I am talking about. How do you claim to know what assumptions I base my theory on?

 

If you advocate a theory it is up to you to explain any data which contradicts your theory.

Cute. Your statement is quite false. I contend that I have absolutely no requirement on this forum to explain any data in a manner that satisfies you. How can you even make such a claim. Furthermore, is it your contention that you personally can and have refuted all evidence that people with alternative theories to yours have presented over the past few years? If you cannot or if you have not, then based on your own requirements how can you even dare to make the statements that you have. According to your statement, I could go out on the web and find any evidence at all that contradicts your theory, and if you cannot or if you have no desire to attempt to personally refute the evidence then you must accept that your own theory is in a secondary position. I don't think that you feel that way, and neither do I.

 

In this case, your Big Crunch hypothesis does not explain why Omega is so close to one. The flat hypothesis does (inflation).

Good for you.

 

Clearly the probability of a 'come back' is not 0, but it is very small indeed.

The probability that your concept of physics will retain it form over the next century is also very small indeed. Does that stop you from holding any theory?

 

We have sufficient data and yes I am sufficiently qualified to analyze that data (although I haven't in detail)

If you have not analyzed the data in detail, then what is your point. You want me to provide evidence that you claim to be qualified to examine but which you make no promises that you will actually examine it, based on your past actions.

 

such that I can state categorically that the data is conclusive in saying that the Big Crunch (in the sense that you mean)

I wonder if you even understand the sense that I mean. Would you care to elaborate? I am sure that you might also categorically state that the probability that the data that you place so much reliance on will stand up over the next century is also extremely small. Is that of value?

 

yes I am sufficiently qualified to analyze that data (although I haven't in detail)

Can I ask you on what basis you consider yourself qualified to analyze the data. You have repeately told me about my assumptions. How can you know my assumptions? Do you think that maybe you might be making a number of assumptions about my assumptions based on less than adequate data? You know nothing about my theory at all, other than that I state that I think that what started in the big bang will end in the big crunch. Or do you know more about my theory?

[Severian]

Here is another assumption on your part of the type that I am talking about. How do you claim to know what assumptions I base my theory on?

 

From your initial post:

 

I think that what began in the big bang will end in a big crunch. The site of the big bang is the center of mass' date=' such that the remaining mass will return to the center in the big crunch.

[/quote']

 

You indicate that you believe in the Big Bang which is a well definied theory. Some certain parameters of that theory would lead to a Big Crunch, which is again well defined. I assume you are talking about the Big Crunch in its commonly defined sense. If you are not then you should not use accepted scientific phrases used for describing one thing to try and describe another. I will continue to assume that you mena the Big Crunch as usually defined rather than some arbirary secret definition known only to yourself.....

 

 

Cute. Your statement is quite false. I contend that I have absolutely no requirement on this forum to explain any data in a manner that satisfies you.

 

So why post here in the first place if you are not willing to engage ina scientific discussion?

 

How can you even make such a claim. Furthermore, is it your contention that you personally can and have refuted all evidence that people with alternative theories to yours have presented over the past few years?

 

Of course! Usually someone else does it for me, but I would be willing to refute any other theories which contradict experimental evidence. That is what science is all about!

 

I could go out on the web and find any evidence at all that contradicts your theory, and if you cannot or if you have no desire to attempt to personally refute the evidence then you must accept that your own theory is in a secondary position. I don't think that you feel that way, and neither do I.

 

Please do! I would be very happy to see evidence which disproves the current cosmological model!

 

If you have not analyzed the data in detail, then what is your point. You want me to provide evidence that you claim to be qualified to examine but which you make no promises that you will actually examine it, based on your past actions.

 

The people working on WMAP are well qualified and describe their analysis in scientific papers well enough that my intervention is unnecessary. I trust them to have done a good job. I am not going to re-examine the LEP data either but I will still believe their number for the Z mass. It would take me years to re-examine this sort of data (and I am not paid to do that anyway).

 

Can I ask you on what basis you consider yourself qualified to analyze the data.

 

Its what I do for a living. I am a particle physicist.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Can I ask you guys what you think the odds are of there having been a big bang?

 

I'm quite interested.

[Cadmus]

So why post here in the first place if you are not willing to engage ina scientific discussion?

I am quite willing to engage in a scientific discussion. However, your attitude does not make it seem at all as though you are interested in a disucssion. You present a couuple of numbers, which you admit that you have not examined yourself, and then you DEMAND that I refute them as a prerequisite to continuing a discussion of my thinking, which has been only just initiated.

 

Of course! Usually someone else does it for me,

So, if you had read someone else then you would be defending their theories. If you don't read the data, then how are you so insistent that I provide data that you won't read?

 

but I would be willing to refute any other theories which contradict experimental evidence. That is what science is all about!

I disagree. You would be willing to consider yourself qualified to categorically refute data that contradicts data that you have accepted without your own analysis. That is not what science is all about.

 

Please do! I would be very happy to see evidence which disproves the current cosmological model!

But I wonder how you feel qualified to evaluate it. You would have to pass it through someone whom you trust.

 

The people working on WMAP are well qualified and describe their analysis in scientific papers well enough that my intervention is unnecessary. I trust them to have done a good job.

I think that it is a fair assumption that no matter how qualified they are to attempt a theory based on the current evidence, such evidence will not withstand the next century. Therefore, I think that you are ascribing to them the position of god, rather than scientist.

 

Its what I do for a living. I am a particle physicist.

Excellent.

[swansont]

Can I ask you guys what you think the odds are of there having been a big bang?

 

I'm quite interested.

 

probability = 1 (approximately)

[Cadmus]

Of course! Usually someone else does it for me, but I would be willing to refute any other theories which contradict experimental evidence. That is what science is all about!

Thank you for your offer. Although I do not subscribe completely to their theory, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a theory that includes a big crunch. I am sure that you have heard of them. Please refute their theory. Do not refute their theory by using citing someone else, because then you would have to provide evidence that one person should be accepted over the other. I would like you to personally evaluate their evidence, although I am sure that perhaps you have already done so, and explain in a way that all of can understand what evidence you personally have that makes their theory impossible. You have asked me to provide a certain type of evidence. I am sure that if you read their work you will find evidence of that nature. Tell us why their theory cannot be accurate, and further provide experiemental evidence that we should all accept as clearly being completely superior to theirs. Thank you.

[Severian]

Reference please?

[Macroscopic]

Originally posted by Cadmus

I think that time is infinite, but that space is finite. How is it that this could not work?

 

Space and time are joined. They have to either both be finite, or both be infinite.

And explain how you think space is finite, because I don't see how that could be possible.