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

#26 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 16 July 2019 - 09:23 PM

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

Definitely.  All this stuff is at the speculative end of things.  Which is why it's interesting.

 

My point is more that until any of these hypotheses get some solid empirical support (including invalidating competitors), it's worth remembering they are all really someone's pet theory.  Which is not a criticism.



#27 Bill001

Bill001

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 16 July 2019 - 09:27 PM

Definitely.  All this stuff is at the speculative end of things.  Which is why it's interesting.

 

My point is more that until any of these hypotheses get some solid empirical support (including invalidating competitors), it's worth remembering they are all really someone's pet theory.  Which is not a criticism.

Yes. Certainly; there is no other choice but to press on with what one has - to follow one’s nose as they say.



#28 Bill001

Bill001

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 20 July 2019 - 02:07 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

In Paul Sutter’s article he states, “What is the Big Bang? If you think it is something like an explosion that started the universe, then you would be in the same boat as most people..... that is about as close to the most common public perception of the Big Bang as you can get.... If you do think of the Big Bang like that, I do not want you to take this personally, but just about every word in that description is dead wrong..... Why are there so many misconceptions about the Big Bang? There are likely several reasons, but the most likely culprit is simple cultural patterns”.

 

 

Paul Sutter needs to do a bit more homework before he blames ‘cultural patterns’ for the general public’s understanding of what the Big Bang “is’’ as if scientist really do know what it ‘is’.  

 

First, in 1931 it was the Belgium physicist Lemaître that proposed in his "hypothèse de l'atome primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the "explosion" of the "primeval atom" — what was later called the Big Bang.  Lemaître also used the metaphors  like “primeval atom” and “fireworks theory” These memes of explosion or implied explosion were introduced to the public - by a scientist.

 

It was in 1949 that Fred Hoyle (one of the founders of the Steady State Model) inadvertently coined the phrase “Big Bang”. Hoyle regretted this term as in 1995 during an interview he said, “Words are like harpoons. Once they go in, they are very hard to pull out” but by then thousands of articles had been published with the title ‘Big Bang’.

 

Hoyle gave a series of lectures broadcast on the BBC and printed in the Listener in which he largely defended the position of the Steady State model saying a finite universe in time was irrational and outside science. Later he did another series of broadcasts on the BBC and also later printed in The Listener.  The idea of the Big BANG was became standard in cosmological community as at this time Hoyle continue to coin the phrase in his lectures.

 

Regarding these lectures however Hoyle later stated, “I was constantly striving over the radio – where I had no visual aids, nothing except the spoken word – for visual images,” he said. “And that seemed to be one way of distinguishing between the steady-state and the explosive big bang. And so that was the language I used”.  So the meme of an explosive Big BANG also came from a scientist.

 

In the last 1960s and 70s three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose applied Relativity to these notions. They published papers in which they extended Einstein's General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 Their publications showed time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3.  1) Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.

2) Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
3) Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11.

 

In my old upper-level textbook “Quantum Physics” 2nd Ed by Eisberg and Resnick (1985) it is stated on page 20, “..... Astrophysicist consider these measurements as strong evidence in favor of the so called ‘big-bang theory, in which the universe was in the form of a very dense, and hot, fireball of particles and radiation... (and)... to the subsequent expansion and resulting Doppler shift ....”

 

Also on page 608, “..... helium that is thought to have been made by fusion from hydrogen in the ‘big ban’ that occurred when the universe started....

 

Whatever the nuances between ‘origin’ - when something ‘started’ - or even ‘fiery’, even Michio Kahu uses the phrase explosion when speaking about the expansion of the universe in one of his interviews:  See YouTube: https://youtu.be/mkW7lPMhqSI.    (1:59)

 

Here’s another example of a scientist embedding memes into the common culture: In this YouTube an elementary particle physicist calls the Big Bang - “an explosion of space” (9:33). https://youtu.be/s5ZPMLkiCKc

 

I bet if I looked harder I’d find more TV physicist celebrities using the work explosion.

 

In sum it is not the ‘simple cultural patterns’ responsible for the general public having ‘slight’ misunderstandings about the nuance of the semantics of the Big Bang - whether it was an explosion and whether it was ‘the’ begining - the confusion is caused by scientists as they evolving their ideas trying to use everyday words to describe abstrations and then trying to walk back memes that ‘they’ introduced to the public.  Wishing to eliminate the word ‘origin’ from the Big Bang Theory is necessary for then one would have to address the existence of an event without a cause.

 

As an aside, wonder who coined the phrase ‘God Particle’?  That was the physicist Dick Teresi (1993).  Paul Sutter should stop criticizing the average person’s understandings.


Edited by Bill001, 20 July 2019 - 03:11 PM.

  • goodricke1 likes this

#29 CygnuS

CygnuS

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1364
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2011
  • Loc: The Great Rift

Posted 22 July 2019 - 03:32 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.

We are certainly an odd species. We continue to search for all the answers even though we know we'll never find them. Why do we try to accomplish something we know is impossible? Is it because it's in our DNA? Because it's fun? Because we've seen so many intellectual giants solve individual  mysteries we thought were impossible? All the above? 


  • bobito likes this

#30 goodricke1

goodricke1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 560
  • Joined: 18 May 2013
  • Loc: Ireland

Posted 25 July 2019 - 12:53 PM

....

 

Great post Bill. Physicists surely understand the difference between what this epithet should mean as opposed to what it does mean. The first milliseconds after the Origin are interesting and all that, but it's the solution to 'something from nothing' is what we actually want to know.



#31 Bill001

Bill001

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 25 July 2019 - 02:13 PM

Great post Bill. Physicists surely understand the difference between what this epithet should mean as opposed to what it does mean. The first milliseconds after the Origin are interesting and all that, but it's the solution to 'something from nothing' is what we actually want to know.

And physics has come a long way since J.J. Thompson’s ‘Plum Pudding’ atomic model too. (:-)



#32 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 82965
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 26 July 2019 - 01:49 PM

I bet if I looked harder I’d find more TV physicist celebrities using the work explosion.

 

In fact, almost every television program on cosmology that I've seen, and I've seen a lot of them, portrays the Big Bang as an explosion.
 

Dave Mitsky

 



#33 Bill001

Bill001

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 26 July 2019 - 01:57 PM

In fact, almost every television program on cosmology that I've seen, and I've seen a lot of them, portrays the Big Bang as an explosion.
 

Dave Mitsky

 

That’s why I thought Sutter’s comments were so rediculous; I get a bigger laugh when celebrities talk about quantum mechanics.


Edited by Bill001, 26 July 2019 - 02:02 PM.


#34 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 28 July 2019 - 08:08 AM

Hehehehe; I prefer "Steady State" because it is a theory and not based on speculation, as "Big Bang."  If everything in our Universe can come from singularity then it may be possible if everything in our Universe can exist before and after.  Simple.  Hum, that may be over the heads of many here.


Edited by Jeff B1, 28 July 2019 - 08:20 AM.


#35 Bill001

Bill001

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 28 July 2019 - 09:10 AM

In 150AD Ptolemy had a geocentric model of the solar system using epicycles and equants to predict the retrograde positions of the known planets.

 

He model worked, but was completely wrong. 



#36 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 28 July 2019 - 10:14 AM

In 150AD Ptolemy had a geocentric model of the solar system using epicycles and equants to predict the retrograde positions of the known planets.

 

He model worked, but was completely wrong. 

Well, entertain us with solid proof he was wrong.  It's like trying to convince a "flat Earther" that the planet we live on is not round but a sphere. 



#37 Bill001

Bill001

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 28 July 2019 - 10:24 AM

Well, entertain us with solid proof he was wrong.  It's like trying to convince a "flat Earther" that the planet we live on is not round but a sphere. 

 

Geocentric means the model has the Earth as the center, not the Sun. It was Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler that disproved it.

 

The celestial mechanics behind all our space exploration is well known; ask any undergraduate astronomy major.

 

One will never convince people that ‘choose’ to be ignorant. The ‘flat Earth’ theory is so easy to disprove it’s laughable.



#38 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 28 July 2019 - 10:59 AM

Geocentric means the model has the Earth as the center, not the Sun. It was Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler that disproved it.

 

The celestial mechanics behind all our space exploration is well known; ask any undergraduate astronomy major.

 

One will never convince people that ‘choose’ to be ignorant. The ‘flat Earth’ theory is so easy to disprove it’s laughable.

Then prove it here.  Exercise futility, if you will.  Haven't head it in years.

 

Hum, I think CN just died.


Edited by Jeff B1, 28 July 2019 - 11:00 AM.


#39 Bill001

Bill001

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 28 July 2019 - 11:59 AM

For one the Coriolis Effect on the Earth rotates in opposite directions in the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Ya know the thing that makes the hurricane things rotate.  A rotating disk can only produce the effect in one direction.

 

The Brits demonstrated the effects of the Coriolis Effect during the Faulkan Islands incident.  The battle ships gun batteries where way off target.  When they realized they were in the southern and not the northern hemisphere and corrected their ballistics calculations they were back to be dead on; having corrected for the change in Coriolis rotational direction.

 

Another example is gravity itself.  The gravitation fields on a disk, at the edges would point to the center of the disk, not down. So oceans near the edge would sloosh toward the center of the disk, people at the edge of the disk would feel gravity pulling them to the side.  There is no gravitation field vector that points down at the edge of the disk.

 

There is also the matter of the horizon, under ideal conditions, allowing a person about 2 meters tall to only see about 3 miles into the distance.  Every look up, at the stars?  You can see lightyears away, but on Earth due to it’s curvature and view of land falls away.  

 

To name a few....

 

 

 

 


Edited by Bill001, 28 July 2019 - 12:03 PM.

  • theropod likes this

#40 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:04 PM

Low ato

 

For one the Coriolis Effect on the Earth rotates in opposite directions in the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Ya know the thing that makes the hurricane things rotate.  A rotating disk can only produce the effect in one direction.

 

The Brits demonstrated the effects of the Coriolis Effect during the Faulkan Islands incident.  The battle ships gun batteries where way off target.  When they realized they were in the southern and not the northern hemisphere and corrected their ballistics calculations they were back to be dead on; having corrected for the change in Coriolis rotational direction.

 

Another example is gravity itself.  The gravitation fields on a disk, at the edges would point to the center of the disk, not down. So oceans near the edge would sloosh toward the center of the disk, people at the edge of the disk would feel gravity pulling them to the side.  There is no gravitation field vector that points down at the edge of the disk.

 

There is also the matter of the horizon, under ideal conditions, allowing a person about 2 meters tall to only see about 3 miles into the distance.  Every look up, at the stars?  You can see lightyears away, but on Earth due to it’s curvature and view of land falls away.  

 

To name a few....

Low atmospheric pressure makes hurricane things rotate. That other stuff just gives direction for rotation.  Yeah, something like warm and cool air gives rise to atmospheric pressure and stuff.  Most people would not understand your explanation. 



#41 Bill001

Bill001

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:10 PM

Low ato

 

Low atmospheric pressure makes hurricane things rotate. That other stuff just gives direction for rotation.  Yeah, something like warm and cool air gives rise to atmospheric pressure and stuff.  Most people would not understand your explanation. 

Like I said one can’t convince a person that ‘chooses’ to be ignorant of anything.   

 

Much of the Universe, our world, our physiology, our computer systems etc can’t be dummied-down enough to satisfiy people like that. That doesn’t mean the explanations aren’t correct as the math and physics speaks for themselves and people that choose to not be ignorant can readily learn with a little effort.

 

Clearly you’ve never had a meteorology course in college, let alone a physics course



#42 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:26 PM

Like I said one can’t convince a person that ‘chooses’ to be ignorant of anything.   

 

Much of the Universe, our world, our physiology, our computer systems etc can’t be dummied-down enough to satisfiy people like that. That doesn’t mean the explanations aren’t correct as the math and physics speaks for themselves and people that choose to not be ignorant can readily learn with a little effort.

 

Clearly you’ve never had a meteorology course in college, let alone a physics course

You can play clever and smart, but that has little to do with my questions.  They are simple questions.  Occam’s Razor type questions.  Beware of rehearsed answers from modern text unless you are capable of explaining it.  Why it the steady state universe incorrect? 



#43 Bill001

Bill001

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:33 PM

You can play clever and smart, but that has little to do with my questions.  They are simple questions.  Occam’s Razor type questions.  Beware of rehearsed answers from modern text unless you are capable of explaining it.  Why it the steady state universe incorrect? 

If you actually were interested in learning the facts about it, I would explain it; clearly you’re not.

 

Go read a book; learn something...



#44 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:45 PM

If you actually were interested in learning the facts about it, I would explain it; clearly you’re not.

 

Go read a book; learn something...

If one cannot explain something as simple as my question then they should not make astronomy a hobby. 



#45 EJN

EJN

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4400
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between what is and what's not there

Posted 28 July 2019 - 01:48 PM

Why it the steady state universe incorrect?

 

Steady state did not predict the cosmic microwave background, where as the big bang did.
When it was found, steady state faded away.

 

Fred Hoyle eventually came up with a theoretical mechanism to produce a cosmic microwave background
in steady state, but it seemed contrived and implausible. Also it cannot account for the power spectrum

of the CMB. In the big bang theory, baryon acoustic oscillations in the early universe appear to

account for the CMB power spectrum quite well.

 

Steady state cannot account for the observed amount of Helium in the universe either, where as
big bang nucleosynthesis does quite well. Steady state can account for a Helium abundance of

~8%, where as the observed Helium abundance is ~25%. Big bang nucleosynthesis predicts

24-26% depending on the baryon density of the early universe.

 

Additionally, steady state requires the existence of a new
field called the C-field, which there is no evidence of from particle accelerators.


Edited by EJN, 28 July 2019 - 02:00 PM.


#46 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 28 July 2019 - 02:14 PM

Steady state did not predict the cosmic microwave background, where as the big bang did.
When it was found, steady state faded away.

 

Fred Hoyle eventually came up with a theoretical mechanism to produce a cosmic microwave background
in steady state, but it seemed contrived and implausible. Also it cannot account for the power spectrum

of the CMB. In the big bang theory, baryon acoustic oscillations in the early universe appear to

account for the CMB power spectrum quite well.

 

Steady state cannot account for the observed amount of Helium in the universe either, where as
big bang nucleosynthesis does quite well. Steady state can account for a Helium abundance of

~8%, where as the observed Helium abundance is ~25%. Big bang nucleosynthesis predicts

24-26% depending on the baryon density of the early universe.

 

Additionally, steady state requires the existence of a new
field called the C-field, which there is no evidence of from particle accelerators.

At last one explanation.  The "C-field" is much like the missing mass or dark matter thoughts.  Even Albert resorted to some magical 'field" or something like a constant to justify his thoughts on the "unified field theory."  One who dismisses a debate and suggest one read books is lazy.


Edited by Jeff B1, 28 July 2019 - 02:15 PM.


#47 EJN

EJN

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4400
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between what is and what's not there

Posted 28 July 2019 - 03:15 PM

The "C-field" is much like the missing mass or dark matter thoughts.

 

I am personally skeptical of theories of non-baryonic dark matter. I think the ultimate

explanation for the "missing mass" will be found in some form of modified gravity.

The LHC, if not totally ruling out theories that non-baryonic dark matter are based on

(supersymmetry), has put very restrictive restraints on the lowest possible mass of

hypothetical dark matter particles, which contradict the original predictions of SUSY.

 

If modified gravity proves to be the explanation, however, that will in no way invalidate

other aspects of big bang cosmology.


Edited by EJN, 28 July 2019 - 03:58 PM.


#48 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 29380
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 28 July 2019 - 03:35 PM

At last one explanation.  The "C-field" is much like the missing mass or dark matter thoughts.  Even Albert resorted to some magical 'field" or something like a constant to justify his thoughts on the "unified field theory."  One who dismisses a debate and suggest one read books is lazy.

No lazier than one who trolls.


  • bobito and theropod like this

#49 EJN

EJN

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4400
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between what is and what's not there

Posted 28 July 2019 - 04:00 PM

No lazier than one who trolls.

 

Touché



#50 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 28 July 2019 - 04:22 PM

No lazier than one who trolls.

The entire thread is a troll.  I thought the subject was more about astrology.  




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