Is Big Bang True? Physics and SR/GR

[Drakkith]

No , big bang is wrong because it asserts our universe arose from a singularity which is wrong , Instead colliding branes models avoids the initial singularity .

The big bang makes no assertions to my understanding. Or rather it says something akin to "our model breaks down beyond a certain time" and does not specifically claim that it arose from a singularity.

 

[zahero_2007]

So the big bang theory is not the correct way to explain the origin of the universe but it can rather describe approximately the universe beyond a certain time .

 

[phinds]

So the big bang theory is not the correct way to explain the origin of the universe but it can rather describe approximately the universe beyond a certain time .

Yes, and generally that time is taken to be the Plank Time which is about 10E-43 seconds.

 

[lyy1992]

I'm also very interested on Big Bang Theory before. I think that the Big Bang theory is neither correct nor wrong, but is the best way to explain the origin of the universe by now. I don't know how the point ball of space before the Big Bang can store so much energy that created all of us, but this theory is predicted by looking the sky. All stars and galaxy are moving away! I don't say that the theory is correct but, who know it is the truth?

Either the universe is expanding or not, it depends on how you view the universe! The red shift detected from stars suggested that the universe is expanding, one point for Big Bang theory. But if you look at the red shift, the effect of red shift is being transmitted million years ago, we know that the universe is expanding before, but not necessary for now. I don't know what is happening on the sky there by now, so we are studying history.

What I can say is the human life is too short for us to make observation. Well, at least we can make a foolish prediction so that the future generation can refer on it.

 

[phinds]

I'm also very interested on Big Bang Theory before. I think that the Big Bang theory is neither correct nor wrong, but is the best way to explain the origin of the universe by now.

No, the big bang theory does NOT predict the origin of the Universe, it describes everts after the Plank time and it absolutly IS correct.

Either the universe is expanding or not, it depends on how you view the universe! The red shift detected from stars suggested that the universe is expanding, one point for Big Bang theory. But if you look at the red shift, the effect of red shift is being transmitted million years ago, we know that the universe is expanding before, but not necessary for now. I don't know what is happening on the sky there by now, so we are studying history.

No, that is not correct either. The universe IS expanding.

What I can say is the human life is too short for us to make observation. Well, at least we can make a foolish prediction so that the future generation can refer on it.

No, that is not correct either. Physicsts have made THOUSANDS of observations (probably MUCH more than that) and they all tell a coherent and consistent story. There are holes in our knowledge, but your belief that we operate from total ignorance it just silly.

 

[1mmorta1]

Why do you feel so ardently that the big bang theory is wrong? To be skeptical is one thing, but to blatantly disregard evidence is another...
Do you have a religious or other non-scientific objection to the big bang?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do you feel so ardently that the big bang theory is wrong? To be skeptical is one thing, but to blatantly disregard evidence is another...
Do you have a religious or other non-scientific objection to the big bang?

Who is this directed towards?

Not sure any of the detractors are being ardent. More like mere indefensible superstition.

 

[phinds]

Who is this directed towards?

Not sure any of the detractors are being ardent. More like mere indefensible superstition.

Dave, I though that post was an appropriate response to Ivy1992's post, which is nonsense, although yeah, the "ardent" was a stretch.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ivy1992's post, which is nonsense

True.

Wasn't sure if it was directed at zahero too/instead.

 

[1mmorta1]

Oops! I made that post with my phone, I guess it didn't quote who I wanted to. It was to that junchiriki guy, who believes the universe is static (I don't remember how his user name is spelled). Although I suppose it could apply to several posters on this thread.

I used the term blatant, not ardent ;)

 

[jtbell]

It was to that junchiriki guy

...who last posted to this thread nearly four months ago.

 

[1mmorta1]

...who last posted to this thread nearly four months ago.

Apologies, on my phone all I noticed was that this thread was trending. I saw his posts about how the big bang was false and thought I'd ask a most obvious question.

I'm not a big forum guy, this is the first time I've really been active on one- I'll make sure to keep an eye on such things from now on :)

 

[Jocko Homo]

Why do you feel so ardently that the big bang theory is wrong? To be skeptical is one thing, but to blatantly disregard evidence is another...
Do you have a religious or other non-scientific objection to the big bang?

Oops! I made that post with my phone, I guess it didn't quote who I wanted to. It was to that junchiriki guy, who believes the universe is static (I don't remember how his user name is spelled). Although I suppose it could apply to several posters on this thread.

I used the term blatant, not ardent ;)

In both cases, the emphasis is mine...

 

[lyy1992]

Whoa, ok, I just skeptical on it, so I made a suggestion. Well, very obvious that the suggestion is wrong, you may simply ignore it. I got to study more about it.
Sorry for nonsense reply, but I think it is possible.

 

[DaveC426913]

but I think it is possible.

Well, anything is possible when one has no facts. But from thence comes faeries, ghosts and unicorns too.

 

[phinds]

Well, anything is possible when one has no facts. But from thence comes faeries, ghosts and unicorns too.

+1 on that

 

[1mmorta1]

In both cases, the emphasis is mine...

Man, I can't believe I didn't realize that I said ardent...I must now dedicate myself to physics for the remainder of my natural life in order to make up for this...

Haha. Thank you for pointing that out :)

 

[LaurieAG]

You said it DaveC426913, I agree 100%

Well, anything is possible when one has no facts. But from thence comes faeries, ghosts and unicorns too.

I came across one of Chronos' old posts in a locked thread that put things in a similar perspective.

Mathematical artifacts aside, the burden of proof is upon you to falsify my model, not me.

But these statements mean that anything that falsifies the model is against forum rules so asking questions where only dissenting answers are against the forum rules and not the original questions themselves is the way to comply.

Does that mean any model resembling our universe, that is based on the application of something like a higher level (field, cyclic, period) construct with only 1 real cycle, that has many sub parts with independent infinite/VL number limits, is equivalent to multiple discrete improper integrals that should not remain linearly undefined or artifacts of Pi will be expected to start popping up to hilight the original falsification under the burden of truth?

I'm all in agreement so far.

So something as simple as the the latest time back to the big bang divided by the time back to our own solar systems creation should never be be considered as an artifact because we are just viewing ancient light as our solar system spins around our own galactic centre? And the artifact that you get when you divide a Galactic year (the time light travels while a source makes 1 complete galactic rotation) by the diameter of the galactic rotation in years is also misconstrued because Pi is what you would expect when you were viewing spiral light paths in linear observation experiments?

I'm still in agreement but I think you forgot about banshees and the pooka.

 

[phinds]

I'm still in agreement but I think you forgot about banshees and the pooka.

HEY ... leave the pooka out of this. I believe in the pooka. The world NEEDS the pooka

 

[DaveC426913]

But these statements mean that anything that falsifies the model is against forum rules so asking questions where only dissenting answers are against the forum rules and not the original questions themselves is the way to comply.

No, you can falsify a model using current, accepted research to show a contradiction. What you can't do is introduce research that has not been accepted.

But yes, this not the forum suited to falsifying current models. Primarily, this is a forum to help students learn and understand science as it is currently understood. Not much point in people trying to run before they've learned how to walk.

 

[Agerhell]

I have always found Arp's ideas fairly convincing. This does not mean I also agrees his points of view on gravity, which are very exotic. But now we even have a quasar which has a relatively nearby galaxy in the background...

[Crackpot link removed]

Who can doubt that at least some of the redshift is intrinsic?

If there really is a picture of a quasar in front of a galaxy I would like to see it. Perhaps someone could provide a link to a picture of that configuration on some website that is not considered a "crackpot" site. Please insert such a link if you know anything about it.

 

[wildwill]

im with jinkurichi300 on this one

how can matter be created.

"matter can neather be created nor destroyed only change form."

thats why i don't believe in the big bang



red shifts could be caused by gravitational lensing of light being bent by gravity of larger objects.


please tell me. could the galexies that appear to be redshifted just be rotating on an elips around the center of the universe, but on a different elips then ours

 

[Drakkith]

im with jinkurichi300 on this one

how can matter be created.

"matter can neather be created nor destroyed only change form."

thats why i don't believe in the big bang

Matter can be and is created and destroyed all the time. We do it in particle colliders every day here on Earth. ENERGY and MASS cannot be destroyed or created, only transferred. Furthermore, the theory of the Big Bang never says that this energy was created from nothing. It only describes the universe after a certain point in time after the Big Bang. What happened before this point in time is beyond that model.

red shifts could be caused by gravitational lensing of light being bent by gravity of larger objects.

Light does not redshift when it is bent around something, only when it moves out of a gravity well. On average there will be equal mass in front of and behind a photon as it moves through space, so the amount of redshift would be counteracted by an equal amount of blueshift.

please tell me. could the galexies that appear to be redshifted just be rotating on an elips around the center of the universe, but on a different elips then ours

There is no center of the universe nor would a rotation around a common center explain the observed redshift.

 

[phinds]

Wildwil, you are continuing to post wildly speculative stuff with no basis in science. I again suggest that you read some basic comsmology.

 

[jinchuriki300]

If you have learned about Compton scattering, you'll understand the energy of quanta decreases, this happens because photon collides with electron and change its direction and give electron some energy, thus, photon loses some of its energy

 

[Drakkith]

If you have learned about Compton scattering, you'll understand the energy of quanta decreases, this happens because photon collides with electron and change its direction and give electron some energy, thus, photon loses some of its energy

Which doesn't explain redshift, as the absorption and emission spectra of different objects is equally redshifted, which wouldn't be the result of compton scattering. Do you know what absorption and emission spectra are?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

If you have learned about Compton scattering, you'll understand the energy of quanta decreases, this happens because photon collides with electron and change its direction and give electron some energy, thus, photon loses some of its energy

so there are clouds of electrons floating in space between us and galaxies, etc. and these clouds are such that they exactly change the energy (and thus frequency) of intervening photons that they appear to be red-shifted?

That's what it sounds like you're implying. Otherwise how does Compton scattering play into the red-shifting of light from so many sources?

The red-shifting of light even correlates with distances determined through other methods, I think. Is this correct? For example Andromeda. I'm pretty sure we can look at the blue-shift of the light coming from Andromeda, but we can also use the Cepheid variable stars their. I have never heard of any disagreement there.

 

[Chalnoth]

If you have learned about Compton scattering, you'll understand the energy of quanta decreases, this happens because photon collides with electron and change its direction and give electron some energy, thus, photon loses some of its energy

Bear in mind, however, that inverse Compton scattering also occurs, where the electron adds energy to the photon.

That said, since the CMB was emitted, our universe has been extraordinarily transparent. WMAP estimates that approximately 92% of the light from the CMB arrives at us without scattering.

 

[clamtrox]

Matter can be and is created and destroyed all the time. We do it in particle colliders every day here on Earth. ENERGY and MASS cannot be destroyed or created, only transferred. Furthermore, the theory of the Big Bang never says that this energy was created from nothing. It only describes the universe after a certain point in time after the Big Bang. What happened before this point in time is beyond that model.

Energy is a coordinate-dependent quantity, and even worse, it's not really conserved in GR anyway (remember that the conservation law is about the energy-momentum tensor, not a single component of it). Mass is only due to interactions with the Higgs field so you shouldn't really be so zealous about them either.. :-)

Usually how one thinks about this is that the gravitational field's energy (which is a muddy concept so I'm not going to be very precise about it) is negative, and for a flat universe, you can show that the sum of gravitational energy and energy of the matter content is exactly zero. So there is nothing (or atleast energy conservation) stopping you from having a theory of quantum gravity which produces flat universes out of the vacuum.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

If Big Bang is true, and it's not Compton scattering that cause the redshift. Then explain this
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110329redshifts.htm
This throw doubt on the Big Bang

Where is the proof the NGC 7319 is opaque? Also, I'm pretty sure your reference has no associated credibility.

 

[Eric333]

philosophically big bang is the most likely, as everything would have to start somewhere...how it happened is of course the question being investigated.

 

[Mark M]

philosophically big bang is the most likely, as everything would have to start somewhere...how it happened is of course the question being investigated.

'Philosophically' does not matter. What matters is scientific evidence, and that's why we KNOW the big bang model is correct.

 

[clamtrox]

philosophically big bang is the most likely, as everything would have to start somewhere...

Can you show your work? How do you evaluate the probability?

 

[DaveC426913]

Can you show your work?

 

[Chiclayo guy]

If the Big Bang was thought of as an event of no real consequence – not really the beginning of anything - merely a hiccup or burp in an eternal and infinite universe, would that in any way influence the thinking, assumptions or focus of present investigation?