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

Problems with the Big Bang theory?

  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#1 Gschnettler

Gschnettler

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Posted 12 November 2020 - 10:11 AM

This website popped up in my news feed this week. Very surprising to me. I thought the Big Bang theory was pretty solid. Is there any credence to these challenges?

A Summary from LPPFusion, Inc.


The contradictions between Big Bang theory predictions and observations are not at all limited to those that have been widely dubbed a “Crisis in Cosmology”. Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the Big Bang theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers. The observations are, on the other hand, consistent with a non-expanding universe with no Big Bang. The real crisis in cosmology is that the Big Bang never happened.

https://lppfusion.co...t-the-big-bang/

#2 AstroPotamus

AstroPotamus

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2020
  • Loc: Rochester, NY

Posted 12 November 2020 - 10:26 AM

I find this article to be poorly researched with incorrect initial assertions.  The primordial universe was not homogeneous, for instance.  Quantum level fluctuations gave rise to anisotropies which in turn gave rise to large-scale structure.  This has been shown time and time again with computer simulation to be essentially correct.  The Big Bang Theory is also the only theory to accurately account for the CMB and the whole matter/antimatter imbalance is thought to be that at the earliest stages, a slight (like .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%) imbalance in the number of matter vs anti-matter particles would account for today's matter-dominated universe.

 

The article also glosses over expansion theory and makes no mention of the accurate predictions BBT makes with regards to what we see today. 

 

In short, the BBT is the best theory thus far in how the universe works starting from the Plank time scale onwards.  Until a quantum theory of gravity is adopted, however, what happens before the first 10e-32 seconds is pretty murky.

 

In short, a few assertions that things are fact and a few cherry picked studies does not convince me that the theory is wrong.  It does point out areas that the theory needs work, but then, we keep finding new pieces in quantum physics, nuclear physics, particle theory, molecular biology, evolution, and other major theories as well so I don't consider it to be a big deal.


  • noisejammer, ShaulaB, mark77 and 2 others like this

#3 Barlowbill

Barlowbill

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,049
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2018
  • Loc: Tulsa, Oklahoma

Posted 12 November 2020 - 10:27 AM

Granted, I'm no rocket scientist but I never bought the theory.  I could never get my head around what was there before?  Nothing?  What is "nothing".  Although, I might like the idea of recurring "bangs".  I don't believe there was ever a "start" and I don't believe there will ever be an "end".  The concept of "time" is overrated IMHO.



#4 descott12

descott12

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,765
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2018
  • Loc: Charlotte, NC

Posted 12 November 2020 - 10:39 AM

This is very interesting and I clearly don't understand the details, but what about the widespread and obvious evidence that objects are rushing away from each other. Even an amateur like me can measure a redshift spectroscopically. So if things are rushing apart, didn't they have to be at one central point sometime in the past?

 

Note: by "rushing away" I mean either physically moving thru existing space OR that space itself is expanding. Either way, there must have been some central "point" in the past.

 

Or am I misunderstanding this basic principle???



#5 stardustborn

stardustborn

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 367
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2007
  • Loc: LI, New York

Posted 12 November 2020 - 11:01 AM

Granted, I'm no rocket scientist but I never bought the theory.  I could never get my head around what was there before?  Nothing?  What is "nothing".  Although, I might like the idea of recurring "bangs".  I don't believe there was ever a "start" and I don't believe there will ever be an "end".  The concept of "time" is overrated IMHO.

 

 

My high school physics teacher said something that blew my mind.  He said that maybe everything simply always was.  There was no "beginning".

 

We tend to think in terms in beginnings and endings because of our temporal existance and experiences.  But the deeper reality is that nothing ever comes and goes, it just changes form.  


  • Jim7728, Astrola72 and Jeff L like this

#6 Simcal

Simcal

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 507
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2018

Posted 12 November 2020 - 11:03 AM

Privately held cold fusion startup... ooh-kaaaaay.  fingertap.gif   



#7 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,054
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 12 November 2020 - 11:06 AM

The evidence for the Big Bang remains overwhelming... and will be... 'till the end of time", which is infinitely far off, literally forever and ever time. It's also consistent with the postulate that we are observing the aftermath of a conscious construct. "From what arose the Universe?" therefore has the correct answer in the form of yet another question, "From Whom arose the Universe?" And that is indeed the most Scientific Question of them all! It's certainly worth thinking about; one's personal future may depend on ~getting the right answer~.    Tom, champion of both the underdog and the overlord


Edited by TOMDEY, 12 November 2020 - 11:07 AM.


#8 AstroPotamus

AstroPotamus

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2020
  • Loc: Rochester, NY

Posted 12 November 2020 - 11:08 AM

"LPPFusion is developing a new energy source, modeled on fusion energy that powers our Sun. The energy produced will be environmentally safe for all life on our planet. This cheap and unlimited energy source is based on aneutronic fuels and the dense plasma focus device, a combination we call Focus Fusion."

 

Ooooohhhh...Focus Fusion!!!!  I can't wait to see how that pans out.  Fusion is fusion.  If you do what our Sun does, you'd better be prepared to have a butt-ton of money, because our first fusion reactor isn't due to go online until about 2030.



#9 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 346
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 12 November 2020 - 04:56 PM

This is Eric Lerner. He is, to put it bluntly, a well known crank, and his stuff is in 'not even wrong' territory. He is an adherent of 'plasma cosmology', which makes no real sense and is long debunked.

A couple of links.

https://en.m.wikiped...lasma_cosmology

http://www.astro.ucl...ner_errors.html

Look, there are unsolved puzzles in the standard theory of this. And until they are all solved, it is good to keep an open enough mind to consider the possibility the whole thing might unravel in a surprising way. But the fact is that it is well supported by many independent lines of evidence, hangs together well, and has seen off its most credible contender, steady state theory. Plasma cosmology really is nowhere.
  • ShaulaB, AstroFrankMontana, TOMDEY and 1 other like this

#10 Gschnettler

Gschnettler

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 160
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Posted 12 November 2020 - 05:41 PM

Thanks for the clarification. Good to know that the Big Bang theory is still nice and solid.

#11 KiwiObserver

KiwiObserver

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Brisbane

Posted 12 November 2020 - 06:51 PM

My high school physics teacher said something that blew my mind.  He said that maybe everything simply always was.  There was no "beginning".

 

We tend to think in terms in beginnings and endings because of our temporal existance and experiences.  But the deeper reality is that nothing ever comes and goes, it just changes form.  

that may be a possibility overall, but at least on our local scale you have to take into account little matters like the finite lifetime of stars, the gradual fusion of elements into heavier metals, and the evolution of galaxies as observed by looking into the distance and hence back in time. All these things wouldn’t make a great deal of sense if our local patch/period didn’t have a starting point, and that’s where the BB comes in. Whether the local patch is the whole patch or not is another story 



#12 AstroPotamus

AstroPotamus

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 285
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2020
  • Loc: Rochester, NY

Posted 12 November 2020 - 07:21 PM

Indeed.  Do not conflate "observable" universe with "entire" universe.



#13 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,786
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between eigenstates

Posted 12 November 2020 - 08:02 PM

that may be a possibility overall, but at least on our local scale you have to take into account little matters like the finite lifetime of stars, the gradual fusion of elements into heavier metals, and the evolution of galaxies as observed by looking into the distance and hence back in time. All these things wouldn’t make a great deal of sense if our local patch/period didn’t have a starting point, and that’s where the BB comes in. Whether the local patch is the whole patch or not is another story 

 

All this, plus if the universe is not of finite age there should be far more stellar remnants, i.e. white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Unless our galaxy formed fairly recently, but then you have the difficulty of explaining the lack of heavy elements in population II stars.

 

Also there is the little matter of entropy, if the universe always existed it should have reached a state of maximum entropy by now.

 

I read Eric Lerner's book about 20 years ago and was not impressed. The argument seems to be A) the theory of galaxy formation does not adequately take into account plasma physics (it's treated as strictly gravitationally driven), therefore B) the big bang never happened.

 

I could possibly accept A, but how you get from A to B is never logically explained.

 

Also, he explains galaxy redshifts as due to "tired light," which is flat out contradicted by the light curves of high-Z supernovae.


Edited by EJN, 12 November 2020 - 08:31 PM.


#14 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,054
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 12 November 2020 - 10:16 PM

This is Eric Lerner. He is, to put it bluntly, a well known crank, and his stuff is in 'not even wrong' territory. He is an adherent of 'plasma cosmology', which makes no real sense and is long debunked.

A couple of links.

https://en.m.wikiped...lasma_cosmology

http://www.astro.ucl...ner_errors.html

Look, there are unsolved puzzles in the standard theory of this. And until they are all solved, it is good to keep an open enough mind to consider the possibility the whole thing might unravel in a surprising way. But the fact is that it is well supported by many independent lines of evidence, hangs together well, and has seen off its most credible contender, steady state theory. Plasma cosmology really is nowhere.

Hi, Dave --- I love your piquish characterization there! It reminds me of uncountable discussions at school, back in ye olden days of yore, where some participant's arguments were so nonsensical, that counterargument was impossible. At work, one of the other physicists found this interminable tome text that rambled on for hundreds of pages, with pseudoscientific wording that sounded right, on the surface, but actually said absolutely nothing. Obviously riddled with errata, but so convoluted that there was actually no logical retort, other than Ehhh... We would occasionally quote from the Tome, which we happily Entitled "Mumbo-Jumbo".

 

One PhD associate was astonishingly adept at sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing. Oft in the conf room, she would ramble at length... and the other ladies and gentlemen side-glancing soto voce, "are you as confused as I am?!" I only later discovered that there is a condition called ~aphasia~ where one's ability to process speech is mildly to severely affected.  The victim can be entirely unaware that anything is amiss. It can be episodic, temporary, somewhat like migraine event, but without the headache. Like a migraine... it can be brought on by stress. Sobering reminder of the thin line we all teeter on, twixt enthusiastically engaged and completely dysfunctional.   Tom



#15 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 213
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 13 November 2020 - 12:07 AM

All this, plus if the universe is not of finite age there should be far more stellar remnants, i.e. white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Unless our galaxy formed fairly recently, but then you have the difficulty of explaining the lack of heavy elements in population II stars.

 

Also there is the little matter of entropy, if the universe always existed it should have reached a state of maximum entropy by now.

 

I read Eric Lerner's book about 20 years ago and was not impressed. The argument seems to be A) the theory of galaxy formation does not adequately take into account plasma physics (it's treated as strictly gravitationally driven), therefore B) the big bang never happened.

 

I could possibly accept A, but how you get from A to B is never logically explained.

 

Also, he explains galaxy redshifts as due to "tired light," which is flat out contradicted by the light curves of high-Z supernovae.

Dear EJN.

 

We haven't locked horns for a while but I got a bit agitated with your confidence in "light curves of high-Z supernovae."

The problem is that the analysis completely ignores well established modern EM theory, based on Maxwell / Heaviside theory (you know the stuff that makes the 5g network, stealth tech., GPS, optical fibres, internet etc. so clever).

    Firstly the assumption that the IGM is completely transparent, secondly that it does not obey phase frequency and amplitude distortion as all other transmission media does.   The IGM is not empty, it is replete with protons, electrons H2 and dust etc. this effectively make it behave like any other transmission media.    Consider a supernova pulse of 15 day period at a distance of 1 billion LY distance,  it's entirely possible that the pulse could be observed to be stretched to 100 years long here on Earth (0.00001%), chromatic distortion could stretch the colour components similarly, the attenuation component alone could completely negate the accelerating expansion model (dark energy).

 

just sayin

Barry



#16 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,007
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 13 November 2020 - 01:14 PM

It's all a figment of our imagination.  .


  • big eye likes this

#17 Voyager 3

Voyager 3

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 595
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2020
  • Loc: Near Bangalore, India

Posted 15 November 2020 - 03:01 AM

All this, plus if the universe is not of finite age there should be far more stellar remnants, i.e. white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Unless our galaxy formed fairly recently, but then you have the difficulty of explaining the lack of heavy elements in population II stars.

 

Also there is the little matter of entropy, if the universe always existed it should have reached a state of maximum entropy by now.

 

I read Eric Lerner's book about 20 years ago and was not impressed. The argument seems to be A) the theory of galaxy formation does not adequately take into account plasma physics (it's treated as strictly gravitationally driven), therefore B) the big bang never happened.

 

I could possibly accept A, but how you get from A to B is never logically explained.

 

Also, he explains galaxy redshifts as due to "tired light," which is flat out contradicted by the light curves of high-Z supernovae.

Entropy can be explained only when , there are systems of matter . If there was no matter in the primordial universe , how could we explain entropy ? Also we humans haven't experienced nothingness . We can't even think about it . When there is an absence of particles , how can we explain entropy? 



#18 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 346
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 15 November 2020 - 05:13 AM

Entropy can be explained only when , there are systems of matter . If there was no matter in the primordial universe , how could we explain entropy ? Also we humans haven't experienced nothingness . We can't even think about it . When there is an absence of particles , how can we explain entropy?


It's not that we only explain entropy in the context of systems of matter. It's that entropy is a property of systems of matter. If there is no stuff that can be ordered, then the concept of order is not meaningful. That's not a failure of our ability to explain - it's simply part of the definition of entropy.

#19 big eye

big eye

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2020

Posted 16 November 2020 - 05:26 PM

This website popped up in my news feed this week. Very surprising to me. I thought the Big Bang theory was pretty solid. Is there any credence to these challenges?

A Summary from LPPFusion, Inc.


The contradictions between Big Bang theory predictions and observations are not at all limited to those that have been widely dubbed a “Crisis in Cosmology”. Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the Big Bang theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers. The observations are, on the other hand, consistent with a non-expanding universe with no Big Bang. The real crisis in cosmology is that the Big Bang never happened.

https://lppfusion.co...t-the-big-bang/

The big bang is all very well for the imagination then so too is the possibility that nothing is as it seems. How do we know the speed of light in other areas of the known universe there for how do we know the size of the known universe we do not know that is my point. The planets are like neutrons orbiting stars. stars that are like atoms electrically charged the universe that can think for its self. I'm glad that there is something smarter than me. Ian.


  • Jeff B1 likes this

#20 Jeff B1

Jeff B1

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,007
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: South Central Florida

Posted 16 November 2020 - 06:07 PM

The big bang is all very well for the imagination then so too is the possibility that nothing is as it seems. How do we know the speed of light in other areas of the known universe there for how do we know the size of the known universe we do not know that is my point. The planets are like neutrons orbiting stars. stars that are like atoms electrically charged the universe that can think for its self. I'm glad that there is something smarter than me. Ian.

Gee Wizz man, the smart boys are always clanging what we are supposed to know.  Magic dark matter to stuff. 


  • big eye likes this

#21 big eye

big eye

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2020

Posted 16 November 2020 - 06:19 PM

Gee Wizz man, the smart boys are always clanging what we are supposed to know.  Magic dark matter to stuff. 

Yes, thanks for your point.



#22 Creedence

Creedence

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2018
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 16 November 2020 - 06:35 PM

This is a “pump and dump” scam guys. They get listed as a publicly traded company- a penny stock, they drum up ridiculous “press releases” using hard to understand and hard to refute information. Their penny stock doubles in value to a whopping 2 cents because 8 people fall for it and trade on the release, the owners dump their shares.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Not a lot of point debating their “claims”. They know they’re false, just like we all do here. The market is not the scientific community.

Edited by Creedence, 16 November 2020 - 08:16 PM.


#23 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,454
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 16 November 2020 - 07:49 PM

Granted, I'm no rocket scientist but I never bought the theory.  I could never get my head around what was there before?  Nothing?  What is "nothing".  Although, I might like the idea of recurring "bangs".  I don't believe there was ever a "start" and I don't believe there will ever be an "end".  The concept of "time" is overrated IMHO.

Well established scientific theories do not require belief. Nor do they ask for obedience. They fit the data and make predictions that can be tested. They can also be disproved unlike crackpot "theories" which are somehow immune to being falsified. 

 

The BBT makes 0 predictions on the beginning and only hints at the end of the universe. 


  • DaveC2042, Eliserpens and big eye like this

#24 big eye

big eye

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2020

Posted 17 November 2020 - 04:20 PM

Time is a concept created by man it has no authority in the universe. The universe is flexible ie, fast static slow. How can we measure the stretching and contracting of the place that we live. A clock is a mear toy in a box filled with importance it has no place in what is real. Sleep is fast awake is slow is the universe resting or is it restless how will we ever know. How can we see the outside from in and how can we see the inside from out. The universe has windows but the blinds are shut we can not see past our concept of the clock. Ian.



#25 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,454
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 17 November 2020 - 08:36 PM

The big bang is all very well for the imagination then so too is the possibility that nothing is as it seems. How do we know the speed of light in other areas of the known universe there for how do we know the size of the known universe we do not know that is my point. The planets are like neutrons orbiting stars. stars that are like atoms electrically charged the universe that can think for its self. I'm glad that there is something smarter than me. Ian.

Without channeling Einstein...

 

Everywhere we look, no matter how close by or how far away, we have never ever seen any violations of the laws of physics as we have modeled. There is no reason to think that the speed of light is different in different parts of the universe. Quasars at very high Z behave just like they are supposed to behave. 

 

Not all questions have answers. Be patient...


  • ShaulaB likes this


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