Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

The Big Bang is not a theory of the origins of the universe.

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18,874
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:14 PM

Just saw this article.  Was nice to see as too often the media just characterizes everything incorrectly.

 

A snippet -

The Big Bang is not a theory of the origins of the universe. I will say it again just to be clear: The Big Bang is not a theory of the origins of the universe. In fact, we have no scientific theory of the origins of the universe.  The Big Bang is a model of the early history of the universe based on abundant observations.

 

https://www.americam...at-you-think-it


  • t_image and alstarjoey like this

#2 Steve Haverl

Steve Haverl

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2018

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:47 PM

Published in “America, The Jesuit Review” is all you need to know about editorial perspective......
  • Todd N likes this

#3 maadscientist

maadscientist

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 08 May 2013
  • Loc: Atlanta, Georgia and Deerlick Astronomy Village

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:55 PM

An interesting response in the comments section. Apparently there is a slight disagreement between the words "origin" and "beginning".

 

J Cosgrove
8 hours 25 min ago

From Discover Magazine http://bit.ly/2Jyns5v

    I’ve come across many proposed alternatives to the Big Bang, but I’ve never seen one that deals honestly and comprehensively with the vast observational evidence that our universe had a hot, dense beginning about 13.8 billion years ago.



#4 Ian Robinson

Ian Robinson

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,698
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2009
  • Loc: 33S , 151E

Posted 12 July 2019 - 11:14 PM

Published in “America, The Jesuit Review” is all you need to know about editorial perspective......


Yep …. exactly .

#5 bobito

bobito

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,673
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Litchfield County, CT

Posted 12 July 2019 - 11:32 PM

It seems the author is pointing out that the Big Bang didn't create matter, and he feels that matter being created at the Big Bang is the way it perceived. 

 

Fair enough.


Edited by bobito, 12 July 2019 - 11:37 PM.


#6 bobito

bobito

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,673
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Litchfield County, CT

Posted 12 July 2019 - 11:52 PM

There is also the aspect of the laws of physics, when were they set?  The article is about an interesting topic, the author was oddly vague about what exactly he's arguing. 



#7 StarWars

StarWars

    Mr. Postmaster Man

  • *****
  • Posts: 32,432
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2003
  • Loc: At the Gym >Spudtastic<

Posted 13 July 2019 - 12:47 PM

I think the new information about BLACK HOLES will disprove the BIG BANG THEORY.....waytogo.gif


  • theropod likes this

#8 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 158
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 13 July 2019 - 05:01 PM

There is also the aspect of the laws of physics, when were they set? The article is about an interesting topic, the author was oddly vague about what exactly he's arguing.


When the author starts talking about 'a bunch of atheists' in the last paragraph, I think his intended point becomes a bit clearer.
  • llanitedave and theropod like this

#9 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,825
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 13 July 2019 - 09:35 PM

How so? Can you be more specific?

 

Or is this a case of when you have no idea what you are talking about then anything is possible?

Calm down...StarWars is talking about the TV show smile.gif



#10 AstroKerr

AstroKerr

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 915
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2017

Posted 13 July 2019 - 10:21 PM

When the author starts talking about 'a bunch of atheists' in the last paragraph, I think his intended point becomes a bit clearer.

reread. think again.



#11 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 158
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 13 July 2019 - 11:18 PM

reread. think again.


I read it, and understood it, and agree his technical point is technically correct.

The last paragraph makes it abundantly clear he is pushing a god-of-gaps 'science can't explain this so god did it' argument.

Of course baldly stating that makes one look a bit silly, so we resort to 'just saying' disingenuousness.
  • Jim7728, llanitedave and theropod like this

#12 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18,874
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 15 July 2019 - 12:45 PM

Published in “America, The Jesuit Review” is all you need to know about editorial perspective......

 

As you recall I am sure...the Big Bang Theory originated from a Jesuit Cosmologist.  So only appropriate that they maintain interest in the theory.


  • delgado39 and t_image like this

#13 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18,874
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 15 July 2019 - 12:49 PM

reread. think again.

Some of us do not need the re-read since we didn't get stuck on any of the various factions he pointed out.  When one gets "noodled" by a single point...then reread. wink.gif

 

Anyway, NONE of that is the point of this post, so hope that commenters will get past any of that and stay on-topic!  Again, the point is a mis-characterization by elements of science and lay alike that the Big Bang is about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe.  It is not.  It is only about the early history.  Any testable theory on the beginning is not yet proposed, if even possible!


Edited by BillP, 15 July 2019 - 12:52 PM.

  • t_image likes this

#14 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18,874
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 15 July 2019 - 01:03 PM

An interesting response in the comments section. Apparently there is a slight disagreement between the words "origin" and "beginning".

 

J Cosgrove
8 hours 25 min ago

From Discover Magazine http://bit.ly/2Jyns5v

    I’ve come across many proposed alternatives to the Big Bang, but I’ve never seen one that deals honestly and comprehensively with the vast observational evidence that our universe had a hot, dense beginning about 13.8 billion years ago.

 

Yup...coming to a common agreement on exactly what one's speech means is no easy task.  So if the “conformal cyclic cosmology“ (CCC) model is correct, as example, the "beginning" or even "origin" of "our universe" might still be considered just the point of the more recent bang and not the potentially infinite number of previous cycles!  So indeed "origin" and "beginning" can be local frame things as well referring to simply "our" current state universe and not previous iterations in the case of that model.  To get one's language to be precise generally means it will not be very succinct. lol.gif  So I agree that nothing observationally suggesting the state prior to the bang, and "presumably" close in time to the bang, was hot and dense.  But no known way to answer I think of how long it may have been sitting in that hot-dense state, nor what ever might have been before.  So again, all we can see is the local early stages of the bang that produced what we see now.  Whatever was before is, or how long it was before, no way to know or test with our current state of things.


Edited by BillP, 15 July 2019 - 01:09 PM.

  • theropod likes this

#15 AstroKerr

AstroKerr

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 915
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2017

Posted 15 July 2019 - 06:13 PM

Some of us do not need the re-read since we didn't get stuck on any of the various factions he pointed out.  When one gets "noodled" by a single point...then reread. wink.gif

 

Anyway, NONE of that is the point of this post, so hope that commenters will get past any of that and stay on-topic!  Again, the point is a mis-characterization by elements of science and lay alike that the Big Bang is about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe.  It is not.  It is only about the early history.  Any testable theory on the beginning is not yet proposed, if even possible!

It wasn't directed to 'most', just one (although two more could benefit).


Edited by AstroKerr, 15 July 2019 - 06:17 PM.


#16 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 29,599
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 15 July 2019 - 07:05 PM

Some of us do not need the re-read since we didn't get stuck on any of the various factions he pointed out.  When one gets "noodled" by a single point...then reread. wink.gif

 

Anyway, NONE of that is the point of this post, so hope that commenters will get past any of that and stay on-topic!  Again, the point is a mis-characterization by elements of science and lay alike that the Big Bang is about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe.  It is not.  It is only about the early history.  Any testable theory on the beginning is not yet proposed, if even possible!

While technically correct (the best kind of correct, of course!), the distinction here we're making between "the creation of the Universe" and the early history of the Universe is down to some fraction of a second.



#17 bobito

bobito

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,673
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Litchfield County, CT

Posted 15 July 2019 - 07:12 PM

While technically correct (the best kind of correct, of course!), the distinction here we're making between "the creation of the Universe" and the early history of the Universe is down to some fraction of a second.

The history of the matter, time, and space that existed in the singularity at the moment of the Big Bang is unknown.  All could have existed for any amount of time prior.



#18 CygnuS

CygnuS

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,387
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2011
  • Loc: The Great Rift

Posted 15 July 2019 - 08:21 PM

The history of the matter, time, and space that existed in the singularity at the moment of the Big Bang is unknown.  All could have existed for any amount of time prior.

But how and why? 



#19 CygnuS

CygnuS

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,387
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2011
  • Loc: The Great Rift

Posted 15 July 2019 - 08:34 PM

 Again, the point is a mis-characterization by elements of science and lay alike that the Big Bang is about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe.  It is not.  It is only about the early history.  Any testable theory on the beginning is not yet proposed, if even possible!

In fact, it doesn't even have a name does it? Calling it pre-Big Bang doesn't work because if you believe that time began in the Big Bang then pre anything is nonsense.


  • Dave Mitsky likes this

#20 bobito

bobito

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,673
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Litchfield County, CT

Posted 15 July 2019 - 09:55 PM

But how and why? 

The singularity is where the math breaks down, it may not be possible to see beyond.  But I think it's interesting to ponder why we don't know "how" matter exists or "why" e=mc2.



#21 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 158
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 15 July 2019 - 10:29 PM

The singularity is where the math breaks down, it may not be possible to see beyond.  But I think it's interesting to ponder why we don't know "how" matter exists or "why" e=mc2.

The singularity is certainly a complete breakdown, but our current physics breaks down long before (after?) you get there.  The detail is arguable, but roughly, inside the Planck time (10^-43s), we do not have a theoretical framework for things.  It's generally assumed this era requires a proper quantum theory of gravity, which we don't have.  In fact you can argue that we don't really understand the following epoch where all the forces other than gravity were unified (10^-36s).

 

And even if we find a good quantum theory of gravity, that may still only get us a bit further and leave a new puzzle.

 

I'm optimistic about our ability to continue to make progress, but fairly sceptical about the idea that we might one day understand everything.


  • llanitedave, Crow Haven, BKBrown and 1 other like this

#22 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,339
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 16 July 2019 - 03:15 PM

Apologies, I did not read the particular article as I presumed the thread was about the initial post and thread title.

However quite saddened of the quick inability of some to grasp the point of the topic, maybe the article was more a distraction than a good reference, or maybe it's just a trigger issue for some....

 

The distinction is an important one as the issue doesn't have to be such a loaded topic.

People shouldn't feel threatened from the pursuit of truth...

 

To get one's language to be precise generally means it will not be very succinct.

Well said, but in the current culture of "120 characters or less", or maybe one meme/emoticon because words are too excessive,

oversimplification of everything and willful ignorance of complexities doesn't serve the truth, whatever it may be.....


Edited by t_image, 16 July 2019 - 03:16 PM.


#23 Bill001

Bill001

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 206
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 16 July 2019 - 04:21 PM

The singularity is certainly a complete breakdown, but our current physics breaks down long before (after?) you get there.  The detail is arguable, but roughly, inside the Planck time (10^-43s), we do not have a theoretical framework for things.  It's generally assumed this era requires a proper quantum theory of gravity, which we don't have.  In fact you can argue that we don't really understand the following epoch where all the forces other than gravity were unified (10^-36s).

 

And even if we find a good quantum theory of gravity, that may still only get us a bit further and leave a new puzzle.

 

I'm optimistic about our ability to continue to make progress, but fairly sceptical about the idea that we might one day understand everything.

Plank Time is an excellent point!  We know we can’t ‘know’ about events shorter then that but there’s more problems w/ the Big Bang mythology then that.

 

It’s said that there was nothing else but the singularity and that the singularity was very hot, nearly infinitely hot.  Then if there was no other ‘place’, the singularity existed everyplace that was someplace so the Big Bang didn’t start at a point, it occured ‘everywhere’ and at the same time as there was no other reference frame

 

Also If there was no extension to the singularity it can’t be hot because heat is a kinetics concept. If there was no space between the matter/energy - whatever - and there were no particles yet, then there was nothing to go going bumpity-bump and no room for bumpity-bump to occur in - so the definition of heat is out the window.

 

When cosmologist figure it was some 380,000 years before light could emerge from the expanding event, the mass of the expansion was huge, far far geater then millions or millions of billions of black holes. From General Relativity we know satellites operate on a different metrics then Earth-based stations to account for the difference in rate of time between the two locations in the gravitationsl field (as time slows deeper in gravitational wells) then one can’t use Earth years to calculate times in the Big Bang, so the calulate 380,000 years could actually be 380,000 trillion billion year due to the high mass of the system so out notion about the age of the Universe is nonsense.

 

The Big Bang is ‘chaulk onthe board’ but it’s gets as sensationalized as TV can make it. Basic ideas are thrown out the window for the sake of the math. Simplistic assumptions are made for the whole Universe - presume space is isotropic.  I thought the term Big Bang was replaced by the term Inflationary Model back in the 80s. As an aside I think it was Sir Roger Penrose who worked out the behavior of previous Big Bangs. He also did this without String Theory working in 3 dimensions plus time (heresy). I believe some of Penrose’s ideas are worked into String Theory, but Penrose’s cosmological model worked in 3 dimensions plus time. 

 

But I digress....



#24 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 158
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 16 July 2019 - 07:06 PM

Plank Time is an excellent point!  We know we can’t ‘know’ about events shorter then that but there’s more problems w/ the Big Bang mythology then that.

 

It’s said that there was nothing else but the singularity and that the singularity was very hot, nearly infinitely hot.  Then if there was no other ‘place’, the singularity existed everyplace that was someplace so the Big Bang didn’t start at a point, it occured ‘everywhere’ and at the same time as there was no other reference frame

 

Also If there was no extension to the singularity it can’t be hot because heat is a kinetics concept. If there was no space between the matter/energy - whatever - and there were no particles yet, then there was nothing to go going bumpity-bump and no room for bumpity-bump to occur in - so the definition of heat is out the window.

 

When cosmologist figure it was some 380,000 years before light could emerge from the expanding event, the mass of the expansion was huge, far far geater then millions or millions of billions of black holes. From General Relativity we know satellites operate on a different metrics then Earth-based stations to account for the difference in rate of time between the two locations in the gravitationsl field (as time slows deeper in gravitational wells) then one can’t use Earth years to calculate times in the Big Bang, so the calulate 380,000 years could actually be 380,000 trillion billion year due to the high mass of the system so out notion about the age of the Universe is nonsense.

 

The Big Bang is ‘chaulk onthe board’ but it’s gets as sensationalized as TV can make it. Basic ideas are thrown out the window for the sake of the math. Simplistic assumptions are made for the whole Universe - presume space is isotropic.  I thought the term Big Bang was replaced by the term Inflationary Model back in the 80s. As an aside I think it was Sir Roger Penrose who worked out the behavior of previous Big Bangs. He also did this without String Theory working in 3 dimensions plus time (heresy). I believe some of Penrose’s ideas are worked into String Theory, but Penrose’s cosmological model worked in 3 dimensions plus time. 

 

But I digress....

Take the Penrose stuff with a bit of a grain of salt.  It's certainly clever and interesting, but somewhat artificial.

 

What he noticed is that if you take a sequence of 'whole universe' solutions of GR (ie each universe from start to end is a separate manifold), you can 'weld them together' end to end mathematically, using an appropriate scaling factor between each solution.  He then extracts some odd but sorta sensible physics from this mathematical object.

 

Attempts to test anything about this empirically haven't really come to anything other than one very heavily disputed observation - the 'concentric circles in the CMB' story from some years back.

 

Decent summary in wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia...yclic_cosmology.



#25 Bill001

Bill001

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 206
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 16 July 2019 - 07:26 PM

Take the Penrose stuff with a bit of a grain of salt.  It's certainly clever and interesting, but somewhat artificial.

 

What he noticed is that if you take a sequence of 'whole universe' solutions of GR (ie each universe from start to end is a separate manifold), you can 'weld them together' end to end mathematically, using an appropriate scaling factor between each solution.  He then extracts some odd but sorta sensible physics from this mathematical object.

 

Attempts to test anything about this empirically haven't really come to anything other than one very heavily disputed observation - the 'concentric circles in the CMB' story from some years back.

 

Decent summary in wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia...yclic_cosmology.

Take String Theory w/ a grain of salt too....




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics