Jump to content
ihsdebate

The Big Bang Theory: pipe dream or the begining pf everything

Recommended Posts

I don't have to back up anything. Burden of proof is on anyone who says otherwise, muchacho.

and also it would be the burden of proof to prove that something exists, rather than to prove that something doesnt exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have to back up anything. Burden of proof is on anyone who says otherwise, muchacho.

 

Alright, you could have just said that in the first reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand how a faulty theory can proove a God exists.

 

My personal take is that it has been expanding and then collapsing for infinity. No beginning, no end. I dunno, there are a lot of things I haven't thought about.

 

This theory is developed under system called "Plasma Cosmology". Basically, the universe collapses until the compaction of static creates a charge large enough to force another expansion. It explains the background radiation problem (which exists in an expanding universe) while also explaining the age dilemma. The current "size" of the universe suggests an expansion no more than 15 billion years ago, but there are "super structures" which would take 100 billion years to form by gravitational pull alone -- the reason for the theoretical creation of dark matter to increase the gravitational pull to form the structures. They created dark matter to explain it, because it was assumed that the universe either expanded, or collapsed, but not both.

 

There is at least one article on this, I believe in Scientific American. And there is a book titled, logically enough, The Big Bang Never Happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This theory is developed under system called "Plasma Cosmology". Basically, the universe collapses until the compaction of static creates a charge large enough to force another expansion. It explains the background radiation problem (which exists in an expanding universe) while also explaining the age dilemma. The current "size" of the universe suggests an expansion no more than 15 billion years ago, but there are "super structures" which would take 100 billion years to form by gravitational pull alone -- the reason for the theoretical creation of dark matter to increase the gravitational pull to form the structures. They created dark matter to explain it, because it was assumed that the universe either expanded, or collapsed, but not both.

 

There is at least one article on this, I believe in Scientific American. And there is a book titled, logically enough, The Big Bang Never Happened.

umm dark matter isn't something they just made up, its real in fact they've made trace amounts of it in labarotories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, you could have just said that in the first reply
I assumed you would understand what I was implying. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assumed you would understand what I was implying. My bad.

 

It's alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
umm dark matter isn't something they just made up, its real in fact they've made trace amounts of it in labarotories

 

Actually, I didn't say it did or didn't exist. I said it was added to the theory of the big bang to explain the observations of large superstructures. Dark matter may in fact exist. But it's not good science to simply add facts not in evidence to preserve a theory.

 

From http://universe.nasa.gov/resources/glossary.html

 

Dark Matter. Mass whose existence is deduced from the analysis of galaxy rotation curves and other indirect evidence but which has so far escaped direct detection.

 

From Wikipedia

In cosmology, dark matter consists of matter particles that cannot be detected by their emitted radiation but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies. Estimates of the amount of matter in the galaxies, based on gravitational effects, consistently suggest that there is far more matter than is directly observable. In addition, the existence of dark matter resolves a number of inconsistencies in the Big Bang theory, and is crucial for structure formation.

 

 

In other words, dark matter is deducted but not observed which means other theories that explain the same phenomena are equally plausible.

Here are some links on Plasma Cosmology:

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/index1.htm

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html#COSMOLOGY

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I didn't say it did or didn't exist. I said it was added to the theory of the big bang to explain the observations of large superstructures. Dark matter may in fact exist. But it's not good science to simply add facts not in evidence to preserve a theory.

 

From http://universe.nasa.gov/resources/glossary.html

 

Dark Matter. Mass whose existence is deduced from the analysis of galaxy rotation curves and other indirect evidence but which has so far escaped direct detection.

 

From Wikipedia

In cosmology, dark matter consists of matter particles that cannot be detected by their emitted radiation but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies. Estimates of the amount of matter in the galaxies, based on gravitational effects, consistently suggest that there is far more matter than is directly observable. In addition, the existence of dark matter resolves a number of inconsistencies in the Big Bang theory, and is crucial for structure formation.

 

 

In other words, dark matter is deducted but not observed which means other theories that explain the same phenomena are equally plausible.

Here are some links on Plasma Cosmology:

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/index1.htm

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html#COSMOLOGY

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htm

then i misunderstood what you said or at least that part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,

 

I am not a physics/math person, but I do remember this thing that Newton said about how "for every action there is a reaction." So, wouldn't that imply that something had to start big bang? Would it not also imply that something had to forge matter? I'm with the cheif instigator of this thread...big bang just doesn't do it for me.

 

I welcome any clarification to my dilemma with big bang.

 

ktex83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok,

 

I am not a physics/math person, but I do remember this thing that Newton said about how "for every action there is a reaction." So, wouldn't that imply that something had to start big bang? Would it not also imply that something had to forge matter? I'm with the cheif instigator of this thread...big bang just doesn't do it for me.

 

I welcome any clarification to my dilemma with big bang.

 

ktex83

 

The problem with your points is that you conceive the universe pre-big bang as a universe that abides by all physical laws that apply to the universe post-big bang. Such may or may not be the case, seeing as how our scientific understanding of the universe is posited upon the belief that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, and, by association, all of the current physical laws the universe follows.

As Stephen Hawking points out in "A Brief History of Time:"

"Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity. . . predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity. In fact, all our theories of science. . . break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. This means that even if there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the big bang.

"Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang."

 

Is that explicit enough for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, its not explicit enough for me...

 

If our physical laws "may or may not" be applicable in the pre-big bang universe, I'd need more detail on a theory that explains how matter would create itself etc.

 

ktex83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, its not explicit enough for me...

 

If our physical laws "may or may not" be applicable in the pre-big bang universe, I'd need more detail on a theory that explains how matter would create itself etc.

 

ktex83

 

Create itself from what? No matter what theory you use to explain the beginning of the universe from that standpoint you will come to the conclusion that something must have always existed, infinitely backwards in time forever and ever. That thing can be GOD, it can be the apple sized chunk of matter that formed the big bang, or the entirety of a breathing universe itself expanding and collapsing. It's called Ex Nihilo creation. From nothing, came something...whether from God, Big Bang or whatever...it still falls victim to the same logical problem unless you admit that something always existed.

 

Our existence, assuming we do, proves that something existed before us and something before it, and so on. If time itself exists in a linear relationship at all, (and maybe it doesn't), then something always existed and was itself NOT created...we can call it the "Unmoved Mover." It makes more sense to me that that something is the vast, primarily empty vacuum of space instead of an all knowing clockmaker, or a chunk of matter that for no apparent reason began rapidly expanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the Big Bang theory fits the facts.

 

Look at what the Ancient Egyptians (my own ancestors) beleived:

 

In the beginning, there were only the premeval waters, Nun. They were inanimate and so could not do anything. Out of the waters came Ra, who conceived the idea of creation and so raised himself on a hill and created himself. The hill was called On (of Bible fame) called by the Greeks the city of Heliopolis. He masturbated, "taking his phallus in his grasp that he might create orgasm by it," and in an act only a god could do, he "poured seed into his own mouth" and out came Shu, God of Air, and Tefnut, Goddess of Mist. Ra then created the rest of the world, blah blah blah.

 

Paraphrased where not outright plaigarized from Gods and Myths of Ancient Egypt by Robert A. Armour, AUC Press 2001

___________________________________________

 

If you don't like the Big Bang, then why not find a different idea? It should fit the facts, unlike the one above, and if it doesn't it should be at least be as interesting. And no, the Biblical story fits neither criterion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, EWWWWW

 

Second, the Plasma Cosmology fits the facts in hand better than the Big Bang. It's just that heady, arrogant professors have made their careers defending and altering the Big Bang to fit new discoveries.

 

PC predicted the background radiation to be very close to what it actually is. PC predicted the discovery of large superstructures of galaxies before the Hubble was launched and eventually found them. PC predicts better than the big bang the abundance of "light elements". Big Bang theorists have added the concept of dark matter to explain superstructures, they've changed their predictions of cosmic background radiation after the fact, they've theorized that the Big Bang is unidirectional despite contrary evidence, and they've even theorized that the event changed speeds while it was happening in clear contradiction to the known laws of the universe (this is what Hawking was talking about in the quote from Brief History of Time above, that the known laws of the universe can be ignored when talking about the BB because it existed in a time before the creation of the current laws. With all due respect, that's ridiculous. We shouldn't assume the laws were anything other than what they are now. The matter is the same, and ought to behave in fairly predictable ways. And it's pretty arrogant to just say "Gee, these silly Laws of the Universe don't fit my theory of the creation of it all, so we'll just say they didn't apply back then.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, the Plasma Cosmology fits the facts in hand better than the Big Bang. It's just that heady, arrogant professors have made their careers defending and altering the Big Bang to fit new discoveries.

 

PC predicted the background radiation to be very close to what it actually is. PC predicted the discovery of large superstructures of galaxies before the Hubble was launched and eventually found them. PC predicts better than the big bang the abundance of "light elements". Big Bang theorists have added the concept of dark matter to explain superstructures, they've changed their predictions of cosmic background radiation after the fact, they've theorized that the Big Bang is unidirectional despite contrary evidence, and they've even theorized that the event changed speeds while it was happening in clear contradiction to the known laws of the universe (this is what Hawking was talking about in the quote from Brief History of Time above, that the known laws of the universe can be ignored when talking about the BB because it existed in a time before the creation of the current laws. With all due respect, that's ridiculous. We shouldn't assume the laws were anything other than what they are now. The matter is the same, and ought to behave in fairly predictable ways. And it's pretty arrogant to just say "Gee, these silly Laws of the Universe don't fit my theory of the creation of it all, so we'll just say they didn't apply back then.")

That's a very good call; it's interesting to note that despite Stephen Hawking's clear description of the Big Bang theory, he himself does not believe in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go with B, here's why:

 

 

 

In 1916, Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity, forever altering the science of cosmology. He had one difficulty, however: his equations showed the universe to be expanding. Because physicists at the time believed that the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting, Einstein introduced a term called the "cosmological constant" into his equations in order to absorb the expansion. In the late 1920's, however, the astronomer Edwin Hubble found evidence that distant galaxies were receding away from Earth at a rate proportional to their distance from us, as if the universe were situated on an expanding balloon. When Einstein viewed Hubble's photographs in 1930, he gave up for all time the idea of a static universe and declared the cosmological constant the biggest blunder he had ever made. Thus was born the Big Bang Theory, which posits that the universe had its origins in a fiery explosion in eons past.

 

As evidence in support of the theory mounted, it caused consternation among biblical literalists, who believed (and who continue to believe) that the universe was created in six 24-hour days, approximately 6,000 years ago. But it also caused consternation among atheists. For one thing, the theory placed the creation event at less than 20 billion years ago (modern data now suggest a 12 to 13 billion year range); this was simply not enough time to accomodate the origin of life by random chance processes. For another, there is the question of what caused the Big Bang. This particular question became more pressing with the publication in the late 1960's of the Space-Time Theorem, by cosmologists Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, and George Ellis. This theorem uses general relativity to prove that matter, energy, space, and time all had their origins in a singularity (a geometric point of zero size). If space and time had a beginning, then whatever caused the Big Bang must have transcended space and time. Moreover, the Space-Time Theorem states that the amount of matter and energy in the universe is finite, imposing limits on how many times the dice can be thrown.

 

A further difficulty concerns black holes. A black hole is a collapsed star which is so dense that, if one is sufficiently close to it (the "event horizon"), nothing can escape from it, not even light. Using general relativity, one can prove that it takes an infinite amount of energy to remove a single particle from inside the event horizon of a black hole. The problem, of course, is that if the entire universe was originally squashed into a singularity, then that singularity was the granddaddy of all black holes. Whatever caused the Big Bang must have had infinite energy.

 

To get around these difficulties, some scientists in the 1970's put forth two alternatives to the theory: the Steady-State Theory, which posits that matter and energy are constantly being created in a manner which allows the universe to remain unchanged over time, and the Pulsating Theory, which posits that the universe's history is punctuated by a chain of Big Bangs and gravitational Big Crunches stretching back into the infinite past. The Steady-State Theory has been discredited by observations of very distant galaxies and quasars, whose light left them near the time of the Big Bang and is just now reaching us; in any case, the theory violates the law of conservation of matter and energy. The pulsating theory still has its adherents, but it too is falling into disfavor because of recent observations indicating that (a) the universe has only 10 to 20 percent of the mass necessary to bring the expansion to a halt and cause a Big Crunch; and (B) the universe's expansion is accelerating. (The acceleration of the universe's expansion proves that it cannot be the remnant of a previous expansion that ended in a Big Crunch, because if it were, it would have only as much energy as the previous expansion. The principle is the same as that which prevents a ball from bouncing higher than the point from which it was dropped.)

 

Some modern physicists are attempting to take advantage of the fact that we can't see all the way back to the time of the Big Bang, so that we cannot verify that the universe indeed emerged from a singularity. We can observe the universe as it was fractions of a second after the Big Bang, but the creation instant itself will be forever obscured. What is interesting is that these same physicists attack creationism as being based on faith. Einstein's laws of general relativity have never been seriously challenged; recent advances in superstring theory (the prevailing theory of hyperspace, which asserts that space and time are curved in higher dimensions) yield general relativity as a direct byproduct; and no one has ever challenged the mathematical underpinnings of the Space-Time Theorem; yet these scientists are trying somehow to avoid the singularity at time t=0. Their very desperation should tell us something.

 

Another option, which has been advanced by Stephen Hawking, among others, is the so-called many-worlds hypothesis. This hypothesis piggybacks off the nondeterminism inherent in quantum mechanics: in small systems like atoms, we do not speak of where a particular electron is located, but rather the manner in which its "wave function" is dispersed. (The wave function is a measure of the probability of finding the electron at any given point.) We all have wave functions, and one could compute the theoretical probability of one's waking up tomorrow morning on Pluto. (I wouldn't lose sleep over it; the odds are vanishingly small.)

 

The many-worlds hypothesis asserts that whenever a random event occurs, the universe diverges into several universes, each containing one outcome of the random event. The hypothesis arose from a thought experiment envisioned by Erwin Schrodinger, the founder of quantum mechanics. In Schrodinger's thought experiment, a cat is placed in a box. Inside the box is a canister of cyanide, a Geiger counter, and an amount of radioactive material so small that there is a 50/50 chance that the Geiger counter will detect radiation. If the Geiger counter detects radiation, a hammer smashes the canister and the cat dies. Otherwise, the cat lives. (If you ask me, Schrodinger was one sick puppy.) The famous Schrodinger's Cat paradox arises when an observer attempts to compute the cat's wave function: before the box is opened, the wave function is the sum of that of a live cat and that of a dead cat. In a sense, the cat is both alive and dead. The many-worlds hypothesis seeks to resolve the paradox by saying that there are two universes, one with a live cat and one with a dead cat.

 

This is all well and good, except for the fact that in each of these universes the observer computes the cat's wave function and still finds that the cat is both alive and dead! The paradox remains.

 

The paradox is resolved by noting that the wave function is a subjective quantity dependent on the amount of information the observer has. If someone peeks into the box before computing the wave function, he/she will get a wave function consistent with either a live cat or a dead cat. If someone else comes along later, not knowing what has happened, that person will get a wave function which is half live cat and half dead cat.

 

Experiments have even been done on pairs of particles which are created with opposite spins and fired at detectors in opposite directions: no matter how far apart they are when they hit the detectors, and no matter how simultaneously they hit the detectors, they always have opposite spins. Since information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, the measurement at one detector cannot influence the measurement at the other detector; hence the particles must have had definite spin before they were measured.

 

Moreover, the many-worlds hypothesis, even if true, does not solve the central problems of the origin of time and the need for infinite energy to cause the Big Bang. It also fails to get around the fact that the laws of physics seem tailor-made for life to exist. It is very easy, through slight manipulations of the physical laws, to construct universes which have only neutrons, which have only hydrogen, or which are otherwise unsuited for life. For instance, if the electrostatic force, which is inversely proportional to distance squared, instead were inversely proportional to distance to the power 2.00001, electrons would fly off into space and atoms would never form. The hypothesis does, however, make a dent in the amount of time required for the origin of life by chance processes, since the dice could theoretically be thrown infinitely many times. But since there seems to be no motivation to accept the hypothesis, depending on it to explain the origin of life is as much an article of faith as believing in God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...