What is the Big Bang Theory?

December 18, 2015 by Matt Williams, Universe Today
The history of the universe starting the with the Big Bang. A billion years after the big bang, hydrogen atoms were mysteriously torn apart into a soup of ions. Credit: grandunificationtheory.com

How was our Universe created? How did it come to be the seemingly infinite place we know of today? And what will become of it, ages from now? These are the questions that have been puzzling philosophers and scholars since the beginning the time, and led to some pretty wild and interesting theories. Today, the consensus among scientists, astronomers and cosmologists is that the Universe as we know it was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos.

This is known as The Big Bang Theory. For almost a century, the term has been bandied about by scholars and non-scholars alike. This should come as no surprise, seeing as how it is the most accepted theory of our origins. But what exactly does it mean? How was our Universe conceived in a massive explosion, what proof is there of this, and what does the theory say about the long-term projections for our Universe?

The basics of the theory are fairly simple. In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began.

While this is not the only modern theory of how the Universe came into being – for example, there is the Steady State Theory or the Oscillating Universe Theory – it is the most widely accepted and popular. Not only does the model explain the origin of all known matter, the laws of physics, and the large scale structure of the Universe, it also accounts for the expansion of the Universe and a broad range of other phenomena.

Timeline:

Working backwards from the current state of the Universe, scientists have theorized that it must have originated at a single point of infinite density and finite time that began to expand. After the initial expansion, the theory maintains that Universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies.

This all began roughly 13.8 billion years ago, and is thus considered to be the age of the universe. Through the testing of theoretical principles, experiments involving particle accelerators and high-energy states, and astronomical studies that have observed the deep universe, scientists have constructed a timeline of events that began with the Big Bang and has led to the current state of cosmic evolution.

However, the earliest times of the Universe – lasting from approximately 10-43 to 10-11 seconds after the Big Bang – are the subject of extensive speculation. Given that the laws of physics as we know them could not have existed at this time, it is difficult to fathom how the Universe could have been governed. What's more, experiments that can create the kinds of energies involved have not yet been conducted. Still, many theories prevail as to what took place in this initial instant in time, many of which are compatible.

Singularity:

Also known as the Planck Epoch (or Planck Era), this was the earliest known period of the Universe. At this time, all matter was condensed on a single point of infinite density and extreme heat. During this period, it is believed that the quantum effects of gravity dominated physical interactions and that no other physical forces were of equal strength to gravitation.

This Planck period of time extends from point 0 to approximately 10-43 seconds, and is so named because it can only be measured in Planck time. Due to the extreme heat and density of matter, the state of the universe was highly unstable. It thus began to expand and cool, leading to the manifestation of the fundamental forces of physics.

From approximately 10-43 second and 10-36, the universe began to cross transition temperatures. It is here that the fundamental forces that govern the Universe are believed to have began separating from each other. The first step in this was the force of gravitation separating from gauge forces, which account for strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism.

Then, from 10-36 to 10-32 seconds after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was low enough (1028 K) that the forces of electromagnetism (strong force) and weak nuclear forces (weak interaction) were able to separate as well, forming two distinct forces.

Inflation Epoch:

With the creation of the first fundamental forces of the universe, the Inflation Epoch began, lasting from 10-32 seconds in Planck time to an unknown point. Most cosmological models suggest that the Universe at this point was filled homogeneously with a high-energy density, and that the incredibly high temperatures and pressure gave rise to rapid expansion and cooling.

This began at 10-37 seconds, where the phase transition that caused for the separation of forces also led to a period where the universe grew exponentially. It was also at this point in time that baryogenesis occurred, which refers to a hypothetical event where temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles occurred at relativistic speeds.

As a result of this, particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions, which is believed to have led to the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe. After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles. From this point onward, the Universe began to cool and matter coalesced and formed.

Cooling Epoch:

As the universe continued to decrease in density and temperature, the energy of each particle began to decrease and phase transitions continued until the fundamental forces of physics and elementary particles changed into their present form. Since particle energies would have dropped to values that can be obtained by particle physics experiments, this period onward is subject to less speculation.

For example, scientists believe that about 10-11 seconds after the Big Bang, particle energies dropped considerably. At about 10-6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons, and a small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons.

The video will load shortly

Since temperatures were not high enough to create new proton-antiproton pairs (or neutron-anitneutron pairs), mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second after the Big Bang for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the universe was dominated by photons – and to a lesser extent, neutrinos.

A few minutes into the expansion, the period known as Big Bang nucleosynthesis also began. Thanks to temperatures dropping to 1 billion kelvin and the energy densities dropping to about the equivalent of air, neutrons and protons began to combine to form the universe's first deuterium (a stable isotope of Hydrogen) and helium atoms. However, most of the Universe's protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei.

After about 379,000 years, electrons combined with these nuclei to form atoms (again, mostly hydrogen), while the radiation decoupled from matter and continued to expand through space, largely unimpeded. This radiation is now known to be what constitutes the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which today is the oldest light in the Universe.

As the CMB expanded, it gradually lost density and energy, and is currently estimated to have a temperature of 2.7260 ± 0.0013 K (-270.424 °C/ -454.763 °F ) and an energy density of 0.25 eV/cm3 (or 4.005×10-14 J/m3; 400–500 photons/cm3). The CMB can be seen in all directions at a distance of roughly 13.8 billion light years, but estimates of its actual distance place it at about 46 billion light years from the center of the Universe.

Structure Epoch:

Over the course of the several billion years that followed, the slightly denser regions of the almost uniformly distributed matter of the Universe began to become gravitationally attracted to each other. They therefore grew even denser, forming gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical structures that we regularly observe today.

This is what is known as the Structure Epoch, since it was during this time that the modern Universe began to take shape. This consists of visible matter distributed in structures of various sizes, ranging from stars and planets to galaxies, galaxy clusters, and super clusters – where matter is concentrated – that are separated by enormous gulfs containing few galaxies.

The details of this process depend on the amount and type of matter in the universe, with , warm dark matter, hot dark matter, and baryonic matter being the four suggested types. However, the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model (Lambda-CDM), in which the moved slowly compared to the speed of light, is the considered to be the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, as it best fits the available data.

In this model, cold is estimated to make up about 23% of the matter/energy of the universe, while baryonic matter makes up about 4.6%. The Lambda refers to the Cosmological Constant, a theory originally proposed by Albert Einstein that attempted to show that the balance of mass-energy in the universe was static. In this case, it is associated with Dark Energy, which served to accelerate the expansion of the universe and keep its large-scale structure largely uniform.

Long-term Predictions:

Hypothesizing that the Universe had a starting point naturally gives rise to questions about a possible end point. If the Universe began as a tiny point of infinite density that started to expand, does that mean it will continue to expand indefinitely? Or will it one day run out of expansive force, and begin retreating inward until all matter crunches back into a tiny ball?

Answering this question has been a major focus of cosmologists ever since the debate about which model of the Universe was the correct one began. With the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory, but prior to the observation of Dark Energy in the 1990s, cosmologists had come to agree on two scenarios as being the most likely outcomes for our Universe.

In the first, commonly known as the "Big Crunch" scenario, the universe will reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse in on itself. This will only be possible if the mass density of the Universe is greater than the critical density. In other words, as long as the density of matter remains at or above a certain value (1-3 ×10-26 kg of matter per m3), the Universe will eventually contract.

Alternatively, if the density in the universe were equal to or below the critical density, the expansion would slow down but never stop. In this scenario, known as the "Big Freeze", the Universe would go on until star formation eventually ceased with the consumption of all the interstellar gas in each galaxy. Meanwhile, all existing stars would burn out and become white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes.

Very gradually, collisions between these black holes would result in mass accumulating into larger and larger black holes. The average temperature of the universe would approach absolute zero, and black holes would evaporate after emitting the last of their Hawking radiation. Finally, the entropy of the universe would increase to the point where no organized form of energy could be extracted from it (a scenarios known as "heat death").

The video will load shortly

Modern observations, which include the existence of Dark Energy and its influence on cosmic expansion, have led to the conclusion that more and more of the currently visible universe will pass beyond our event horizon (i.e. the CMB, the edge of what we can see) and become invisible to us. The eventual result of this is not currently known, but "heat death" is considered a likely end point in this scenario too.

Other explanations of dark energy, called phantom energy theories, suggest that ultimately galaxy clusters, stars, planets, atoms, nuclei, and matter itself will be torn apart by the ever-increasing expansion. This scenario is known as the "Big Rip", in which the expansion of the Universe itself will eventually be its undoing.

History of the Big Bang Theory:

The earliest indications of the Big Bang occurred as a result of deep-space observations conducted in the early 20th century. In 1912, American astronomer Vesto Slipher conducted a series of observations of spiral galaxies (which were believed to be nebulae) and measured their Doppler Redshift. In almost all cases, the spiral galaxies were observed to be moving away from our own.

In 1922, Russian cosmologist Alexander Friedmann developed what are known as the Friedmann equations, which were derived from Einstein's equations for general relativity. Contrary to Einstein's was advocating at the time with his a Cosmological Constant, Friedmann's work showed that the universe was likely in a state of expansion.

In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebula showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. At the same time, Hubble began developing a series of distance indicators using the 100-inch (2.5 m) Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. And by 1929, Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recession velocity – which is now known as Hubble's law.

And then in 1927, Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, independently derived the same results as Friedmann's equations and proposed that the inferred recession of the galaxies was due to the expansion of the universe. In 1931, he took this further, suggesting that the current expansion of the Universe meant that the father back in time one went, the smaller the Universe would be. At some point in the past, he argued, the entire mass of the universe would have been concentrated into a single point from which the very fabric of space and time originated.

These discoveries triggered a debate between physicists throughout the 1920s and 30s, with the majority advocating that the universe was in a steady state. In this model, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, thus preserving the uniformity and density of matter over time. Among these scientists, the idea of a Big Bang seemed more theological than scientific, and accusations of bias were made against Lemaitre based on his religious background.

The history of the Universe, from the Big Bang to the current epoch. Credit: bicepkeck.orgThis

Other theories were advocated during this time as well, such as the Milne Model and the Oscillary Universe model. Both of these theories were based on Einstein's theory of general relativity (the latter being endorsed by Einstein himself), and held that the universe follows infinite, or indefinite, self-sustaining cycles.

After World War II, the debate came to a head between proponents of the Steady State Model (which had come to be formalized by astronomer Fred Hoyle) and proponents of the Big Bang Theory – which was growing in popularity. Ironically, it was Hoyle who coined the phrase "Big Bang" during a BBC Radio broadcast in March 1949, which was believed by some to be a pejorative dismissal (which Hoyle denied).

Eventually, the observational evidence began to favor Big Bang over Steady State. The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the universe. From the late 60s to the 1990s, astronomers and cosmologist made an even better case for the Big Bang by resolving theoretical problems it raised.

These included papers submitted by Stephen Hawking and other physicists that showed that singularities were an inevitable initial condition of general relativity and a Big Bang model of cosmology. In 1981, physicist Alan Guth theorized of a period of rapid cosmic expansion (aka. the "Inflation" Epoch) that resolved other theoretical problems.

What is the Big Bang Theory?
Diagram showing the Lambda-CBR universe, from the Big Bang to the the current era. Credit: Alex Mittelmann/Coldcreation

The 1990s also saw the rise of Dark Energy as an attempt to resolve outstanding issues in cosmology. In addition to providing an explanation as to the universe's missing mass (along with Dark Matter, originally proposed in 1932 by Jan Oort), it also provided an explanation as to why the universe is still accelerating, as well as offering a resolution to Einstein's Cosmological Constant.

Significant progress was made thanks to advances in telescopes, satellites, and computer simulations, which have allowed astronomers and cosmologists to see more of the and gain a better understanding of its true age. The introduction of space telescopes – such as the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), the Hubble Space Telescope, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and the Planck Observatory – have also been of immeasurable value.

Today, cosmologists have fairly precise and accurate measurements of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, not to mention the age of the Universe itself. And it all began with the noted observation that massive stellar objects, many light years distant, were slowly moving away from us. And while we still are not sure how it will all end, we do know that on a cosmological scale, that won't be for a long, LONG time!

Explore further: Is the universe ringing like a crystal glass?

Related Stories

Is the universe ringing like a crystal glass?

June 26, 2015

Many know the phrase "the big bang theory." There's even a top television comedy series with that as its title. According to scientists, the universe began with the "big bang" and expanded to the size it is today. Yet, the ...

Will the Big Bang go backwards?

September 8, 2015

Imagine the Big Bang in your mind. You're picturing galaxies hurtling past in all directions, like so much star shrapnel from a celestial pinata.

CERN collides heavy nuclei at new record high energy

November 25, 2015

The world's most powerful accelerator, the 27 km long Large Hadron Collider (LHC) operating at CERN in Geneva established collisions between lead nuclei, this morning, at the highest energies ever. The LHC has been colliding ...

Why is the night sky black?

December 2, 2015

It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

Recommended for you

Test for damp ground at Mars streaks finds none

August 24, 2016

Seasonal dark streaks on Mars that have become one of the hottest topics in interplanetary research don't hold much water, according to the latest findings from a NASA spacecraft orbiting Mars.

China unveils 2020 Mars rover concept: report

August 24, 2016

China has unveiled illustrations of a Mars probe and rover it aims to send to the Red Planet at the end of the decade in a mission that faces "unprecedented" challenges, state media said on Wednesday.

Fossilized rivers suggest warm, wet ancient Mars

August 23, 2016

Extensive systems of fossilised riverbeds have been discovered on an ancient region of the Martian surface, supporting the idea that the now cold and dry Red Planet had a warm and wet climate about 4 billion years ago, according ...

What do aliens look like? The clue is in evolution

August 19, 2016

Speculating about what aliens look like has kept children, film producers and scientists amused for decades. If they exist, will extra terrestrials turn out to look similar to us, or might they take a form beyond our wildest ...

98 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (16) Dec 18, 2015
The article is based on an idiosyncratic definition of 'big bang'. See Matt Strassler for other often used definitions: http://profmattst...eliable/ .

If one is conservative, while Planck's latest data seems to imply a steep inflation potential so perhaps a finite period of inflation, it is more robust to say that big bang was subsumed under inflation as the Hot Big Bang Era. (See Strassler's first image.)
Hat1208
5 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2015
Wait for it.
wduckss
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 18, 2015
I love a fairy tale, but this one tale does not rhyme (with the real universe).
All started from a single point, but coming from all directions (how much is a singularity?).
Matter diverge in all directions, even though we see that all rotate (..., rotate, and clusters of galaxies, what it is diverged?).
The universe accelerates (by bang), but the evidence is clear that the most distant objects are moving 270,000 km / sec, while closer to galaxies only from 100 to 2000 km / sec (In fact, what it is accelerating, stopping?). ...
rodkeh
1.7 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2015
If one has the intestinal fortitude to consider for a moment, that Einstein was wrong and Matter and Energy are not transmutable, one to the other, then the whole mystery goes away.

E = MC^2; Einstein's equation tells us not, how much energy can be converted from a quanta of matter but, it does tell us how much energy is possessed and bound-up within, a quanta of matter. In events of nuclear decay or explosion, the amount of mass present, both before and after the event, remains the same. No mass is converted. It is just a lot more widely and broadly dispersed along with the associated energy, as Alpha and Beta particles, both of which possess both mass and energy.

Neither Mass nor Energy may be either created or destroyed; these along with The Laws of Physics were created by God (whatever you conceive Him to be) and are immutable.

The rest is self-evident!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (24) Dec 18, 2015
If one has the intestinal fortitude to consider for a moment, that Einstein was wrong and Matter and Energy are not transmutable, one to the other, then the whole mystery goes away

However every bnuclear reactor, every collider, and even every chemical reaction (including simple things like lighting a fire) would disagree with your "intestinal fortitude"

Are you sure that's not another type of bowel movement you're talking about (read: hot air)

No mass is converted. It is just a lot more widely and broadly dispersed

The mass is not just 'more dispersed. Masses have been measured of all of these things. And all the measurements agree: matter and energy are converted into one another.

But, what does actual experiment count when confronted with a brainfart, eh?
Spaced out Engineer
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
What if instead Eistien was right and wrong? In other words every frame of reference could possess undecidability, simultaneouty, and relativity. The universe could spiral out and crunch in. Scale for perspective would be a tensor network conditional, but not absolute and everyone could be happy! Who is to say what is small stuff? So don't sweat it. Without an absolute perspective it you can still make and appeal to the balance of eternalism and nihilism.
http://m.phys.org/news/2015-09-small-entropy-quantum-reversed.html

Positive pressure and negative pressure could both miss and not miss. From within we could have many worlds orthogonal to anthropic type universe. And then the rules of orthogonality emergent from nonanthropocy and a higher dimensional Platonic realm.
rodkeh
1.7 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2015
"However every bnuclear reactor, every collider, and even every chemical reaction (including simple things like lighting a fire) would disagree with your "intestinal fortitude"

Are you sure that's not another type of bowel movement you're talking about (read: hot air)"

Obviously another scientifically illiterate American; a statistical member the group referred to by the Pew Institute in their assessment based on their research. A fact demonstrated by your lack of understanding of the difference between a chemical and nuclear reaction.

Get an education.

matt_s
3.7 / 5 (21) Dec 18, 2015
@rod

Says the guy spouting nonsense and not even considering the implications.

Lol.
SuperThunder
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 18, 2015
It is the theory that an upbeat, emotionally moving wall of sound can be created with various harmonized brass and percussion instruments... what? Oh. Big BanG Theory.
rodkeh
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 18, 2015
@matt

What do you think it implies?

What nonsense? It is virtually the same accept that the laws of conservation are universally upheld and no magic is required to transmute matter into energy or visa versa. I don't believe in magic!
SuperThunder
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2015
Matter / energy equivalence denial is a new one.

I'm going to need some interns to start helping me collate the data on Project Moon Howler.

e = ScobyDoo!
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2015
What is the Big Bang Theory?

Just another creation story....
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."
Hannes Alfvén

Burnerjack
4.6 / 5 (18) Dec 18, 2015
Matter / energy equivalence denial is a new one.

I'm going to need some interns to start helping me collate the data on Project Moon Howler.

e = ScobyDoo!

He would have got away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!...
Benni
2.9 / 5 (23) Dec 19, 2015
At this time, all matter was condensed on a single point of infinite density and extreme heat. During this period, it is believed that the quantum effects of gravity dominated physical interactions and that no other physical forces were of equal strength to gravitation.


Mathematically defined, a "point" has no physical structure, a point is simply the "absolute center" of a physical structure. A "point" cannot even be a "singularity", because even that word connotes the existence of a physical body of something which must have an absolute "center point".

condensed on a single point of infinite density
So how does a single point become infinitely dense if there is not infinite matter? Infinity is infinity, it isn't possible to get "infinite density" if the structure itself has been predefined as something "single". Anything "single" has a structure, as such it has a center point, therefore cannot be infinite in density, a property requiring infinite matter.

Benni
2.6 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2015
Adding to my above post concerning the issue of "infinite density" on a single point that was brought up by the author: How is "infinite density" achieved without Infinite Matter?

Does the author even understand the concept of "density"? Density is, the quantity per unit volume, unit area, or unit length, the mass of a substance per unit volume as in the distribution of a quantity (as mass, electricity, or energy) per unit usually of space, an average number of units per space.

If within a given space (a "singularity" is what is given here), there exists a condition of "infinite density", no gaps between particles forming the infinite density can exist. Because gaps do not exist between particles nothing can move, ever, yet according to the BBT there was an explosion which requires room (space, gaps) without which expansion & energy distribution (entropy) can never occur.

Look out into the night sky, do you see infinite matter? No, what predominates is empty space.

Tri-ring
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2015
No benni, since general relativity dictates that mass can warp spacial dimensions infinite density will result in a single point in space.
Having said that quantum mechanics dictates it would not be able to position that point nor will it be able to quantify a quantum singularity as a single point. We only know that the singularity is somewhere within the Schwarzschild radius or the event horizon.
If both are equally true then there is no spacial dimensions within the Schwarzschild radius although it could have a radius of a light year.
It's similar to Einstein's thought experiment, What does one see within the Schwarzschild radius looking out and the other see outside looking in?

my2cts
3.2 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2015
No mass is converted. It is just a lot more widely and broadly dispersed along with the associated energy, as Alpha and Beta particles, both of which possess both mass and energy.

Nope. electron-positron annihilation, available in a hospital near you, does not conserve mass.
The rest is self-evident!

The errors in your post again make clear that physics is not at all self evident.
my2cts
3.3 / 5 (23) Dec 19, 2015
"However every bnuclear reactor, every collider, and even every chemical reaction (including simple things like lighting a fire) would disagree with your "intestinal fortitude"

Are you sure that's not another type of bowel movement you're talking about (read: hot air)"

Obviously another scientifically illiterate American; a statistical member the group referred to by the Pew Institute in their assessment based on their research. A fact demonstrated by your lack of understanding of the difference between a chemical and nuclear reaction.

Get an education.


You are totally wrong but and when proven so you produce insults.
Standard crank behaviour. Check.
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2015
No benni, since general relativity dictates that mass can warp spacial dimensions infinite density will result in a single point in space.
Having said that quantum mechanics dictates it would not be able to position that point nor will it be able to quantify a quantum singularity as a single point. We only know that the singularity is somewhere within the Schwarzschild radius or the event horizon.
If both are equally true then there is no spacial dimensions within the Schwarzschild radius although it could have a radius of a light year.
It's similar to Einstein's thought experiment, What does one see within the Schwarzschild radius looking out and the other see outside looking in?


B. should always be on "ignore". This should be a default setting for new subscribers.
my2cts
3.3 / 5 (26) Dec 19, 2015
What is the Big Bang Theory?

Just another creation story....
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."
Hannes Alfvén

This shows that Alfvén can be wrong, while a catholic priest can be right.
BB is a viable theory, since it has not been proven wrong or been replaced by a simpler one explaining the observations. You don't have to believe it, but you can't say it is wrong (yet ?).
Benni
2.6 / 5 (23) Dec 19, 2015
No benni, since general relativity dictates that mass can warp spacial dimensions infinite density will result in a single point in space.
You need to study GR because Einstein wrote nothing about "infinite density" &" single point in space" structure.

We only know that the singularity is somewhere within the Schwarzschild radius or the event horizon.
If both are equally true then there is no spacial dimensions within the Schwarzschild radius
The Schwarzschild radius is a mathematical calculation that has limits, the smallest "calculated radius" has never been observed, therefore you can't know it actually exists.

although it could have a radius of a light year
How did you calculate this? Or is it observation?

It's similar to Einstein's thought experiment, What does one see within the Schwarzschild radius looking out and the other see outside looking in?
So tell us us about it.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2015
BB is a viable theory, since it has not been proven wrong or been replaced by a simpler one explaining the observations.

Not really. Lemaitre proposed the BB to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing. And a much simpler explanation of the observation is that the theorized description/use of redshift is greatly flawed.
You don't have to believe it, but you can't say it is wrong (yet ?).

Metaphysical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo can be cast aside with minimal effort.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (18) Dec 19, 2015
You need to study GR because Einstein wrote nothing about "infinite density" &" single point in space"
@benjiTROLL
Einstein also didn't like QM (the most successful theory in existence) and didn't like spooky action at a distance, which is proven real
he also never wrote about MHD, helioseismology or DNA but they're still true and they still exist

.

Metaphysical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo can be cast aside with minimal effort
@cd religiousTroll
that is why the eu is cast aside - because it brings ZERO evidence, makes suppositions based upon delusion and... wait!
holy COW... that is what religion does!
eu is a RELIGION, not a science!

thanks for proving that (again)
Bigbangcon
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2015
"Big Bang" is a "Big Bust" now. It starts with "supersymmetry" : http://www.thegua...comments
Bigbangcon
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2015
Sorry, forgot to mention (above) that it is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that undid the "Big Bang" by demolishing the "Virtual Edifice" and the "Castle in the Air" of Albert Einstein!
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2015
BB is a viable theory, since it has not been proven wrong or been replaced by a simpler one explaining the observations.

Not really. Lemaitre proposed the BB to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing. And a much simpler explanation of the observation is that the theorized description/use of redshift is greatly flawed.

I do not care why he proposed it. The only relevant fact here is that it still stands.
You don't have to believe it, but you can't say it is wrong (yet ?).

Metaphysical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo can be cast aside with minimal effort.

That is an irrelevant truism.
The BB theory is a physical theory.
Put in some more effort.
Maybe the BB theory is all wrong, but you have not brought in any evidence to support such a conclusion.
my2cts
3.1 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2015
Sorry, forgot to mention (above) that it is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that undid the "Big Bang" by demolishing the "Virtual Edifice" and the "Castle in the Air" of Albert Einstein!

I'm afraid you will have to explain that. Who needs SUSY anyway?
Bigbangcon
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2015
"I'm afraid you will have to explain that. Who needs SUSY anyway?"


Please see the discussion in the Guardian article mentioned above; specially the comments by "futurehuman".
Benni
2.5 / 5 (24) Dec 19, 2015
You need to study GR because Einstein wrote nothing about "infinite density" &" single point in space"
@benjiTROLL
Einstein also didn't like QM (the most successful theory in existence) and didn't like spooky action at a distance, which is proven real


Stumpo,

How is it you feel so compelled to comment on the contents of Einstein's General Relativity when you wouldn't even be able to follow the lowest order of it's mathematical content in the form of Trigonometric Functions much less his Differential Equations?

my2cts
3.5 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2015
"I'm afraid you will have to explain that. Who needs SUSY anyway?"


Please see the discussion in the Guardian article mentioned above; specially the comments by "futurehuman".

I fail to see the connection between the failure of some SUSY theory and the BB theory or GRT.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (20) Dec 19, 2015
Another post by B. that I will miss.
Some OCD like statements about how he/she knows his/her GRT and DE's, no doubt.
From engineering class.
Voting him/herself with 5 stars.
Narcissism.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2015
Hi my2cts, CapS, Benni, everyone. :)

Just a reminder/caution: Both Relativity (SR, GR) and Quantum Theories are mathematical/abstract 'analytical/predictive constructs'; saying nothing about actual physical nature/source of 'properties' and 'features/behaviors' of 'bodies/processes' they observe/interpret; where/what 'produced' hypothesized 'BBang'. They only 'explain' in a 'secondary abstractions' sense what the observations/predictions 'mean' in reality.

So, before anyone gets carried away based on increasingly 'iffy' certainties/beliefs, stop and review what those theories are, and are NOT; and what they can do, and CANNOT do. :)

PS: When reviewing, consider especially the latest astronomical observations/discoveries re newfound variability in Supernovae's 'local conditions/structures/processes' (and in intervening space-paths of their light to 'here'); making 'standard candles' dataset 'iffy' as 'evidence for' expansion/accelerated expansion/inflation etc. Take care. :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are my fellow Earthling?. Oh yeah, I am good and holding the Louisiana Annex of the Earthling Clubhouse and making them respect the scientists and humans like you told me.

Just a reminder/caution: Both Relativity (SR, GR) and Quantum Theories are mathematical/abstract 'analytical/predictive constructs'; saying nothing about actual physical nature/source of 'properties' and 'features/behaviors' of 'bodies/processes' they observe/interpret; where/what 'produced' hypothesized 'BBang'. They only 'explain' in a 'secondary abstractions' sense what the observations/predictions 'mean' in reality.


You should put that up in the Headquarters Earthling Clubhouse. It could be paper No. Six.

So, before anyone gets carried away based on increasingly 'iffy' certainties/beliefs, stop and review what those theories are, and are NOT; and what they can do, and CANNOT do.


That's what I been trying to tell them but they don't listen to me non.

Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2015
P.S. for you Really-Skippy about your P.S.

PS: When reviewing, consider especially the latest astronomical observations/discoveries re newfound variability in Supernovae's 'local conditions/structures/processes' (and in intervening space-paths of their light to 'here'); making 'standard candles' dataset 'iffy' as 'evidence for' expansion/accelerated expansion/inflation etc.


That's good stuff too. Put him in exploring paper Number Six too.

Take care. :)


You take care too and I'll see you at next the next International Convention of the Earthling Club.

@ Everybody else. You can learn some really good stuff at the Earthling Clubhouse in Australia. But I will tell you right up front, Really-Skippy don't allow any disrespecting the scientists or humans, so if you don't want a silly looking pointy cap don't dishonor the Club or make a mess in the Clubhouse.

http://earthlingclub.com/

AGreatWhopper
2.6 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2015
Useless troll bait. Why would anyone suborn that??? A pox on all your houses.
jim_xanara
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 19, 2015
Einstein was a jerk. Even your Christians say so. http://www.bibleb...tein.htm
AGreatWhopper
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 19, 2015
I can't understand how people call what I've said about the owners/motivation of this site a conspiracy theory when you have evidence like jx. Can you name one serious site that doesn't delete anti-semitism? One??? That's not an oversight. It's not an accident. It's completely consistent with what I've said.

Now really amaze me and tut-tut about it...whilst suborning the effort by arguing with the trolls. There's a good British word for that kind of behavior. FECKLESS.
jljenkins
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2015

wduckss 1.5 / 5 (8)
All started from a single point, but coming from all directions (how much is a singularity?).
Matter diverge in all directions, even though we see that all rotate (..., rotate, and clusters of galaxies, what it is diverged?).
The universe accelerates (by bang), but the evidence is clear that the most distant objects are moving 270,000 km / sec, while closer to galaxies only from 100 to 2000 km / sec (In fact, what it is accelerating, stopping?). ...


Classic crank logic. "The mote I call a brain can't imagine it, so it cannot possibly be". I can't imagine anyone that's that much of a loser giving their wisdumb publicly, but, there you are!


wduckss 1.5 / 5 (8) I love a fairy's tail


Leave your predilection for anal sex out of this.
SuperThunder
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2015
Just a reminder/caution: Both Relativity (SR, GR) and Quantum Theories are mathematical/abstract blah blah blah


Nope, relativity is observable in the universe and would never have been discovered using only mathematics. Standard howler nonsense #infinity + infinity * infinity.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2015
Stumpo,

How is it you feel so compelled to comment on the contents of Einstein's General Relativity when you wouldn't even be able to follow the lowest order of it's mathematical content in the form of Trigonometric Functions much less his Differential Equations?

There he goes with his DE stuff, again...
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2015
Hi SuperThunder. :)
Nope, relativity is observable in the universe and would never have been discovered using only mathematics. Standard howler nonsense...
If you can leave aside your own predilection for 'howling' insults, you will realize that I never said otherwise. The observables/predictables is precisely what the abstract spacetime analytical construct was designed to treat. I said that the nature/source of these observables/predictables are NOT the 'domains' of either SR/GR or QT to actually explain. These theories merely observe, describe and make analytical constructions to give models and interpretations and predictions therefrom. At NO stage do either of those theories ever claim to explain the underlying nature/source of all that we observe/predict abstractly from said observations/analysis. If you don't watch out, and start actually understanding before you kneejerk, you yourself may end up as one of those 'howlers', mate. Enjoy Xmas break, safely! :)
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
Einstein was a jerk. Even your Christians say so. http://www.bibleb...tein.htm

Yeah, but....
He was a SMART jerk...:-)
SuperThunder
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2015
RC, a theory of something does not precede the observation. It doesn't matter what you say about where and how GR and SR came from (hint, it wasn't a priori using Euclidean geometry), the fact remains is that what it describes exists, and it doesn't matter what you call it, it will only fall as math in one way, the way that explains what is. You can't make the wrong math more complicated to suddenly make it the right math. You mas as well be saying if you bullshit enough you can explain SR in musical notes or colors, you cannot (er, okay, you probably cannot).

Math does not magic up a universe for scientists to deny reality with, both have a lot more restrictions than your imagination.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
Hi SuperThunder. :)

Theory-observation-hypothesis-new-observation-new/improved theory and so on; a feedback loop. Earliest relativity theories were classical Newtonian/Galilean etc, and existed long before relativistic SR/GR. It's the new observations which conflicted with those earlier theories that drove necessary review/further cogitation that led to improved theory. In other words, the moment you wake up as a cogitating intellect observing the world around you, your subconscious is already at work making theory and testing same against reality...and if you need to, then make new conscious theory and retest; and so on. It is a never ending process involving all the talents which human beings are capable of bringing to the objective testing of any prior subconscious/conscious 'world construct'. The GR/SR/Q theories are abstractions FROM the observed 'real world construct'.

SR/GR/Q theory 'explanations' limited to abstraction analysis/interpretations OF observables. :)
SuperThunder
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 19, 2015
as a cogitating intellect observing the world around you, your subconscious is already at work making theory and testing same against reality...and if you need to, then make new conscious theory and retest; and so on. It is a never ending process involving all the talents which human beings are capable of bringing to the objective testing of any prior subconscious/conscious 'world construct'. The GR/SR/Q theories are abstractions FROM the observed 'real world construct'.

You have a great way of using academiasprechen sounding fifty cent words to say little.
cogitating intellect

I could start right there and point out you could never quantify that term and spend the next 10,000 words taking apart the language of the entire post.
Theory-observation-hypothesis-new-observation-new/improved theory and so on; a feedback loop.

Yes, and when you begin that chain with "theory" instead of "observation" you get a feedback loop straight into moon-howler-dementia.
my2cts
3 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2015
Hi my2cts, CapS, Benni, everyone. :)

Just a reminder/caution: Both Relativity (SR, GR) and Quantum Theories are mathematical/abstract 'analytical/predictive constructs'; saying nothing about actual physical nature/source of 'properties' and 'features/behaviors' of 'bodies/processes' they observe/interpret; where/what 'produced' hypothesized 'BBang'. They only 'explain' in a 'secondary abstractions' sense what the observations/predictions 'mean' in reality.

So, before anyone gets carried away based on increasingly 'iffy' certainties/beliefs, stop and review what those theories are, and are NOT; and what they can do, and CANNOT do. :)

Why do you put everything in "quotes" You "remind" me of "Dr Evil". "". Drop it.
Also stop this nonsense about theories that are only mathematical constructs.
Physics consists entirely of mathematical constructs but these model the physical world.

http://d2ws0xxnno.../dr-evil
Monkey Butt
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2015
This is absurd. Anyone with half a brain, knows that a giant pink unicorn farted our universe into existence...duh.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2015
Hi SuperThunder. :)
Yes, and when you begin that chain with "theory" instead of "observation" you get a feedback loop straight into moon-howler-dementia.
I didn't 'begin it', mate. It is a closed loop. There is no 'first link'. It started in prehistoric intellect as unconscious/automatic once that intellect tries to make sense of surroundings. The observations are what 'feeds' the closed loop. The mind subconsciously tries to make a world construct which 'makes sense' enough to be going on with from that point. If that mind is a SCIENTIFIC ONE, it will come up with a METHOD for automating that closed loop COGITATING PROCESS such that no further 'subjective/subconscious' interference can 'break' that closed loop from then on. Hence the SCIENTIFIC METHOD first arrived at AFTER human minds started the 'process' from initial subconscious start followed by further cogitation and further observation/hypothesizing/testing/theorizing and so on in a closed loop.

Cheers. :)
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? I am good again too, thanks for asking.

Podna you don't have to take that kind of misere from a bunch of non-Earthling-Skippys. I say we don't let them in the Earthling Club until they quit disrespecting scientists and humans, eh? How about we blow this dive and meet over in the Clubhouse so we can discuss the good stuffs without all these rude distractions. You with me on that?

Okayeei, I meet you over there,,,,,, http://earthlingclub.com/
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2015
Hi my2cts. :)
Why do you put everything in "quotes" You "remind" me of "Dr Evil". "".
If you notice, the limited text format here produces all too many cases of misunderstandings which go on to blow up and never stop. :)

So I 'quote' terms which might otherwise be misinterpreted/misread' by kneejerk/confirmation biased 'reading'. It forestalls much of the usual scope for such misunderstandings due to limited text format.

Any similarity between me and your "Dr Evil" character is purely coincidental...and 'no fictional characters were harmed' by use of quotation marks to date. :)
Also stop this nonsense about theories that are only mathematical constructs.
Physics consists entirely of mathematical constructs but these model the physical world.
Exactly..."models"...based on abstractions (eg, "space-time" concept) DERIVED as 'secondary identities/properties etc' FROM the observable reality analyzed/interpreted via said abstract "modeling' construct. See? :)
SuperThunder
3 / 5 (16) Dec 19, 2015
I didn't 'begin it', mate. It is a closed loop.

Oh my no. It began with observation. Otherwise you get this :

Theory : If I wish hard enough, I get what I want.
Observation : Observer then cherry picks to fit theory, ignoring contradictory data.
Hypothesis : If I perform a human sacrifice, I'll get even more wishes.
New Observation : Observer then cherry picks to fit theory, ignoring contradictory data.
New Improved Theory : The more I kill, the more I get.

As opposed to.

Observation : I don't get what I want.
Hypothesis: This wishing crap isn't working, perhaps doing is superior.
EXPERIMENT (woops you forgot that one!) : Wishing fails to match doing in controlled double blind tests.
Theory : Wishing is crap, doing gets things done.
New Hypothesis : Doing more gets more done...

And so on.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2015
Hi SuperThunder. :)

You are describing the final version of the scientific method. No problem. That's what I have been following since age nine. :)

The initial subconscious/automatic closed loop I am speaking of starts at the point an intellect begins cogitating based on initial conditions/impressions which automatically create in the mind a subjective 'world construct' from which is launched further observation/cogitation in the closed loop manner I mentioned. The closed loop was later re-jigged to THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD designed to treat only objective inputs/outputs and the 'next step' from any 'step' chosen.

The point you make about spurious 'logic train/results' from a non-objective loop is quite valid.

That is why I always make that loop objective and exclude all personality/source/insults/biases/politics etc etc 'inputs/intrusions' into the scientific method and/or the scientific discourse. If one does that, and scrupulously, the results have objective validity. :)
SuperThunder
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2015
RC, I don't think you're seeing that there levels of "cogitation" that are not present naturally in human thinking, and give no rise to human behavior from some hidden locus of control. A crow can build a tool, but it doesn't formulate a philosophy of technological innovation. The scientific method, while built absolutely on our strong inductive instinct (observation, after all), doesn't end there. There is an entire other level of using what is observed as data in another thought process to predict data that can then be confirmed, again, by induction. It's very clear to me that not everyone takes it beyond (very weak) induction, and some deny that as well. Deduction, analysis methods, logical constructs are of a different order of thought. It doesn't come with birth, it comes with education. Putting "theory" (your word for conjecture) over observation roots perception straight in imagination, and denies our instincts for seeing reality.
SuperThunder
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
Also, thanks, Big Bang, for the Portia spider.
https://en.wikipe...genus%29
It seems to think a little deeper than most, but I doubt it there's a Miyamoto Musashi of Portia Spiders that is going to sit down and write The Book of Five Webs about being a master spider slayer.

Does the Portia spider know that when it looks through space it also looks through time? A lot of humans don't, even when looking at the stars.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2015
It seems to think a little deeper than most, but I doubt it there's a Miyamoto Musashi of Portia Spiders that is going to sit down and write The Book of Five Webs
@SuperThunder
awesome book, BTW (the Niten Dōraku reference)

loved that book...
loved his history as well, though you don't see him referenced a whole lot in the US

.

.

There he goes with his DE stuff, again...
@Whydening Gyre
Yeah... that is typical when backed into a corner she can't get out of - she starts throwing around the "you can't do ODE's" comment...

sad thing is: YOU specifically proved she can't do them
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

LOL
AND
she didn't even know the basic terminology

worse yet, she doesn't know basic math
http://phys.org/n...als.html

...but she wants to comment that others don't know it

her transference and Dunning-Kruger
DavidW
3.2 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2015

Mathematically defined, a "point" has no physical structure, a point is simply the "absolute center" of a physical structure. A "point" cannot even be a "singularity", because even that word connotes the existence of a physic


To "define" a point requires perspective: life. Life, as we know it, defines a perspective as a location in x,y and z. Three numbers.

DavidW
3.4 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2015


But, what does actual experiment count when confronted with a brainfart, eh?


Such as trying to say something can be more important than life while using life.
Phys1
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2015
@ DavidW
Life is not important and truth is overrated.
my2cts
3 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2015
I mean of course the life and truth of people like DavidW.
Such people can never push the envelope.
All you can expect from him is sabotage.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2015
Benni claimed
How is it you feel so compelled to comment on the contents of Einstein's General Relativity when you wouldn't even be able to follow the lowest order of it's mathematical content in the form of Trigonometric Functions much less his Differential Equations?
There you go with your tangential claim yet Again, for the umpteenth time re Calculus - DE's !

Yet you cannot or refuse to describe/handle/solve/comment on the DE re radiative heat
https://en.wikipe...transfer
which leads to
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Others can read those links but, your claim you won't at all is "very strange" !

Tell us about your claim you started out as an Electrical Engineer then "became" a Nuclear Engineer but, insist on using terms like "Statistical Probabilities", when did you graduate & where please ?

Tell us also Benni, why you imagine natural gas is *not* a fossil fuel ?
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2015
@Mike
Why are trying to talk sense into B. ? Ignore.
docroc67
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2015
I do have a quibble with this article: In its definition of the big bang in the 3rd paragraph, it says

"In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began."

The even-more-difficult-to-conceive part that the author doesn't reference until the paragraph on Lemaitre is that time and space themselves are non-existent until the big bang, not just matter.
docroc67
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2015
As a PS, I also want to add that the "singularity" is not a "very small ball" of anything. Rather, it is the mathematically inevitable point we get to after having made the observations the author refers to in the article and then, based on those observations and concepts extracted fro them, essentially running the evolution of the universe in reverse, like a movie run backwards. The singularity is the point this thinking leads back to.
vidyunmaya
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2015
Sub: Cosmology borderland between science-philosophy
All theories get filtered over a period of time. No dogma.
scientists must develop the Spirit of interaction- as Space data dawns upon .
international year of light 2015 must transcend to Conscious Spirit of developing the Subjects that inspire all humanity. human being consciousness to cosmic consciousness dictate the necessity-demand to search origins and interact. curiosity-sustain become part of management Culture Index- cosmological index- Cosmic Function of the Universe. cosmology vedas need best of brains trust that calls for paradigm shift to dimensional Frames- Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows :Add Protection. Space Cosmology Vedas Interlinks-Cosmology Definition-1 By Vidyardhi Nanduri
http://www.youtub...youtu.be
Benni
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2015
As a PS, I also want to add that the "singularity" is not a "very small ball" of anything. Rather, it is the mathematically inevitable point we get to after having made the observations the author refers to in the article and then, based on those observations and concepts extracted fro them, essentially running the evolution of the universe in reverse, like a movie run backwards. The singularity is the point this thinking leads back to.


You confuse the definition of "point" with that of "singularity". The two are not the same. A "singularity" has a radius as calculated by Schwarzschild Radius using Einstein Field Equations, by contrast a "point" has no radius that can be calculated because the exact center of anything is just that, a "point".

A "point" is a geometric element that has a position but no dimensions and is pictured as a small dot. (copied from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2015
my2cts with a fair question
@Mike
Why are trying to talk sense into B. ? Ignore
Problem with ignore option is it allows the plebes/d.cks/cranks to leave unchallenged comments which obfuscate & then (sad) I won't have much fun showing them up ;-)

Seriously, suffice to say, there could well be method in my madness as these are public forums & Science communication has its place & developing, from sheer embarrassment which has minimal use to providing useful links to some who could read these forums months later or whenever or dare I say it - somehow create a leverage paradigm to derive an income down the track - though undecided on the latter (ps: No whine for me today, i'm sober), ps see my post to you on
http://phys.org/n...tor.html

re seeing who votes etc, twas a surprise some d'ck tried to obfuscate, ffs
https://sciencex...._Masson/
EnsignFlandry
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2015
The BB theory is based purely on General Relativity. Since quantum mechanics had to be involved, the theory is incomplete or possibly wrong. A volume less than the Planck volume is meaningless, so a singularity is meaningless.
Likewise, the Hawking and Penrose proof that the universe had to have a beginning at a singularity if General Relativity is true neglects quantum mechanics.
When we have a theory of quantum gravity we can talk about the BB or modifications of it.
docroc67
4 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2015
Benni - Bad wording on my part. I didn't mean point in the geometric sense, but rather that point in the process of reversing cosmological evolution where you can't go back any further.
Benni
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2015
Benni - Bad wording on my part. I didn't mean point in the geometric sense, but rather that point in the process of reversing cosmological evolution where you can't go back any further.


OK, I see your "point"........I'm not familiar with your profile so I simply assumed a different context to your wording because "singularities" are commonly referred to by pop-sci aficionados as "points".
baudrunner
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2015
he Universe as we know it was created in a massive explosion
A massive explosion is still an explosion, which is a finite event.

How was our Universe conceived in a massive explosion, what proof is there of this
It's here, for one thing. All points in the universe are receding from all other points in the universe.

the Planck Epoch (or Planck Era), this was the earliest known period of the Universe. At this time, all matter was condensed on a single point of infinite density
But the thing is, infinite density is infinite potential, and what you're really saying is that the current paradigm is flawed, because an explosion is a finite event.
baudrunner
3.5 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2015
speaking of gravity..

From our perspective, a gyroscope which rotates at near light speeds should have mass approaching infinite, so at some point from our perspective, as observers, we should note an increase in the gravitational attraction of the spinning mass. If we can keep something like that from catastrophically flying apart then we have our "real" artificial gravity.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2015
All points in the universe are receding from all other points in the universe.


No baud, they're not. In a couple billion years Andromeda is due to collide with our Milky Way. In fact all over the Universe galaxies are perpetually colliding & merging in an unabated fashion. So how is it with these kinds of observational evidence can anyone conclude that all points in the universe are receding from one another?

Benni
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2015
But the thing is, infinite density is infinite potential, and what you're really saying is that the current paradigm is flawed, because an explosion is a finite event.


The Laws of Conservation of Energy as found in the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics comport to your analysis that "an explosion is a finite event". It's a finite event because it would require an infinite amount of matter to produce an infinite amount of energy.

Look into the night sky, do you see an infinite quantity of matter there? No, you see mostly empty space, just as the parameters of atoms are mostly composed of empty space. From this observation it is easy to conclude the Universe itself must be finite, just as Einstein stated in Part 3 of General Relativity, The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity.

http://www.bartle...32.html, click on Part III Considerations on the Universe as a Whole. It is easy reading even though Einstein wrote it.
Benni
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2015
Cont'd from previous...........

Here's the exact Bartleby link that will take you straight to the specific section of GR I referred to above, or you can simply find another site that contains the entire thesis, it doesn't need to be a Bartleby link.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/
someone11235813
3 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2015
Universe as we know it was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos.


Did the BB 'create' the matter and energy, or did it merely provide the platform for it to manifest as we now perceive it. Similarly is consciousness or the foundation of consciousness 'created' or was it already existent in an unmanifest form and subsequently became manifest.
someone11235813
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2015
All points in the universe are receding from all other points in the universe.


No baud, they're not. In a couple billion years Andromeda is due to collide with our Milky Way. In fact all over the Universe galaxies are perpetually colliding & merging in an unabated fashion. So how is it with these kinds of observational evidence can anyone conclude that all points in the universe are receding from one another?



I think you are confusing objects within spacetime to points in spacetime. The spacetime points between Andromeda and our Galaxy are getting further away from each other while the two galaxies are falling together so in effect they are moving through spacetime.
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2015
someone11235813 stretching things a bit with
Similarly is consciousness or the foundation of consciousness 'created' or was it already existent in an unmanifest form and subsequently became manifest
So called 'consciousness' is consistent with complex pattern recognition & at mechanist (basic chemical) level, so far nil evidence there's independence of such from mere perception...
ie desire for such isnt supported by immense chaos we see at astronomical levels.

someone11235813 added
..two galaxies are falling together so in effect they are moving through spacetime
The overall presumption is all are moving through spacetime & always.

Clearly at the comparatively local scale there are immense number of chaotic interactions - overall however at larger scales structures appear to be receding at accelerated rate, its not clear if there's a stretching of spacetime as such or a force ipsofacto within a more or less static spacetime or even remnant of inflation...
xstos
3 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2015
Knock knock knock, Penny. Knock knock knock, Penny. Knock knock knock, Penny.
Benni
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2015
All points in the universe are receding from all other points in the universe.


No baud, they're not. In a couple billion years Andromeda is due to collide with our Milky Way. In fact all over the Universe galaxies are perpetually colliding & merging in an unabated fashion. So how is it with these kinds of observational evidence can anyone conclude that all points in the universe are receding from one another?


I think you are confusing objects within spacetime to points in spacetime. The spacetime points between Andromeda and our Galaxy are getting further away from each other while the two galaxies are falling together so in effect they are moving through spacetime.
OK, so provide a brief description of "spacetime points".
SuperThunder
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2015
What's up with entropy and the arrow of time? It looks like the universe is a box of spacetime flour with no box and no flour that was tipped over by no one from off a shelf that doesn't exist destined to spread out into homogenous nothing in a space it had to bring with it to even do that. I would accept God as the answer, but God doesn't fit, because God would have less entropy and just be one more step in the Big Bang and the arrow of time. If God did it, God is temporal, entropic, and part of the universe's causality. What's up with stuff that God can't even be used to explain? I consider this The Mystery every time I think about the universe. The Mystery that outstrips the religious imagination.

Are there any ideas about anti-time, or something scientists only talk about when drunk? I love the theoretical stuff about branes, multiverses, deities, but from my simpleminded point of view, from within the flour, is there an observable indication of an answer in itself?
someone11235813
5 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2015
OK, so provide a brief description of "spacetime points".


Let's put it this way, you are not suggesting that the Universe is not expanding I presume, and so therefore you are not suggesting that the gravitational attraction of our Galaxy and Andromeda is dragging spacetime along with it?
someone11235813
4 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2015
@Mike-Massen,
someone11235813 stretching things a bit with
Similarly is consciousness...

So called 'consciousness' is consistent with complex pattern recognition & at mechanist (basic chemical) level, so far nil evidence there's independence of such from mere perception...

I'm not sure that I understand what you are getting at. Let's take the eye for example, molecules detect specific wavelengths and end up sending an electric impulse to the brain, I suppose that is the 'chemical level' you are talking about. However that is separate from your perception of 'green'. A plant reacts to the wavelength we call green but a plant does not 'perceive' green in the sense that we use it when we refer to us 'recognising' green.

I make a distinction between the evolution of organisms brought about by the fundamental forces on matter eventually form life, and the perception of something like being able to ponder how the universe began. Particularly the awareness of awareness.
Benni
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2015
OK, so provide a brief description of "spacetime points".


Let's put it this way, you are not suggesting that the Universe is not expanding I presume, and so therefore you are not suggesting that the gravitational attraction of our Galaxy and Andromeda is dragging spacetime along with it?


Andromeda & Milky Way are the two largest galaxies within a "local cluster" of about 30 galaxies. Even as Andromeda & MW are on convergent pathways to one another, these two galaxies at the same time are moving in towards our Local Virgo Supercluster group of galaxies, but not exactly to the center where is located is a huge Elliptical 100's times bigger than MW .

Local Groups being gravitationally bound do seem to keep together within the Local Supercluster as also being gravitationally bound within the Supercluster, beyond that galactic motion is unpredictable because even some Superclusters are suspected to have convergent pathways.

Benni
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2015
Cont'd from above:

When Local Supercluster galaxies are showing evidence of colliding, what does that have to say for the motion of the entire Universe? When Superclusters are not only receding from one another but others are colliding with one another how can you from that conclude the Universe is expanding? Read Einstein's section on GR for which I gave you the link. Einstein clearly states the Universe is finite, and I agree. What the boundaries are is what we hope to find with the James Webb telescope.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2015
How is the situation with the Differential Equations, B. Any breakthroughs?
Still reading ancient manuscripts on GRT ?
Remember you on are ignore though.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
No baud, they're not. In a couple billion years Andromeda is due to collide with our Milky Way. In fact all over the Universe galaxies are perpetually colliding & merging in an unabated fashion. So how is it with these kinds of observational evidence can anyone conclude that all points in the universe are receding from one another?

That's pretty easy to understand. If all points are receding from one another then the cumulative effect over a large distance (many in-between points) is large.

If you take n intervals of an arbitrary distance between points A and B and in a certain time t such an interval increases by 1% then after said time t the distance between A and B has increased by 1%. This means that if A and B are very far apart then that can easily mean that the total distance between A and B increases faster than c*t (Note that this is not motion, but expansion. So there's no breaking of the light speed barrier involved)...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
... but at very close distances it's still 'just' 1% increase over a time t.
At (on a universal scale) local distances the speed of objects resulting from their acceleration towards each other (due to gravity) can easily be larger than the expansion over such short distances. This is why the expansion of space is not going to stop the likes of Andromeda crashing into us, because Andromeda is coming at us (or we at it) with roughly 300km/sec - and accelerating.

Whereas the expansion of space is 74km/s/Mpsc (and Andromeda is only 3/4 Mpsc away from us)
Benni
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2015
but at very close distances it's still 'just' 1% increase over a time t.
At (on a universal scale) local distances the speed of objects resulting from their[
acceleration towards each other (due to gravity) can easily be larger than the expansion over such short distances. This is why the expansion of space is not going to stop


Anti Phy, Your above synopsis is simply a regurgitation of the tired old theory that:

All points in the universe are receding from all other points in the universe.


When Superclusters are observed in collision all over the Universe, it defies logic to present hypotheses (as you regurgitated above) that will in effect result in a Universe where one day Earthbound telescopes will see a darkening sky because so many galaxies are dropping out of view.

You obviously do not believe that "local physics" is representative of "distance physics", so you contort observed motion of colliding Superclusters as evidence of an Infinite Universe.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
that will in effect result in a Universe where one day Earthbound telescopes will see a darkening sky because so many galaxies are dropping out of view.

Yes. So? Where's your problem with that? It doesn't defy logic (it's exactly what logic predicts). You must have some weird new definition of what 'logic' means to you - but to the rest of us it is that which agrees with theory that has been verified by experiment and observation.

You obviously do not believe that "local physics" is representative of "distance physics"

Quite the contrary. There are just two things working at the same time: Relative motion and expansion (which is not a motion). Relative motion is not cumulative with distance whereas expansion is. This makes it very easy to see that at different scales one dominates over the other - but both are at work at all scales just the same. There's no special rule needed for "here" and "there".
Benni
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2015
There's no special rule needed for "here" and "there"
But you imagine there is because you imagine conflicts must exist with the laws of Conservation of Energy, that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics regarding the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, which will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

It is beyond your comprehension that as "entropy" applies to the rocket engines we use to send launches into the Solar System we live in, are the same laws of "closed systems" that govern energy distribution throughout the Universe, and if that Universe is "open", entropy of the Universe will go negative.

As usual however, when you come to a fork in the road & are caught up in another conundrum of the "consensus science"of BBT, you take the fork.

Maybe you can derive the equation for the Entropy of an Open System? Prove "local entropy" is not "distant entropy".
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
But you imagine there is because you imagine conflicts must exist with the laws of Conservation of Energy

Erm...how about: no?
Entropy increases in an expanding universe just as well. There's no point where this goes negative. If you have the math where you think that happens show it. I'm pretty sure we'll find an error on your part in there.

If the universe is open then the same rules as all open systems apply: you can get entropy to go down at the expense of more entropy increase elsewhere. though what 'elsewhere' we're talking about is up for grabs

Note that an expanding universe does not equate automatically to an open system.
Benni
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2015
Entropy increases in an expanding universe just as well. There's no point where this goes negative
I stated this before you did that it can't go negative, but it can reach zero, and zero it becomes when the system is open.

Note that an expanding universe does not equate automatically to an open system.
How do you know that? You've been out there & seen it with your own eyes?
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2015
... If you have the math where you think that happens show it. ...

Come on, B. is a OCD case who annoys people for whatever is a psycho's equivalent of fun. B. has no math, seriously.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2015
There might well be quite a few people who have claimed to be Electrical Engineers who then went on to become Nuclear Engineers who just love Differential Equations, in that case, this can be most edifying, if at least to keep up to date:-
http://hackaday.c...-2849811

n respect of Hubble's efforts & the expansion of the universe for the budding amateur astronomers who have unclear inarticulate complaints & insist on observing the local scale, there's a nice Nova (US TV) documentary, this was aired in Australia recently (SBS) free download
http://www.sbs.co...revealed

Perhaps those really interested in pinning down details can offer credible links as to why they imagine the accepted view, based on significant reliable evidence, is so very wrong ?

Experienced Electrical/Nuclear Engineers included (of course) :P
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
but it can reach zero, and zero it becomes when the system is open

So? And I reiterate: an expanding universe does not automatically equate to an open system. 'Expanding' and 'open' are NOT equivalent terms.

Only interaction with something 'other' - like Branes or similar - would classify the universe as an open system. But in that case we look at the entropy of that combined system (universe plus Branes) which still increases.

So we have two possible scenarios:

Expanding/closed universe: No problem. Entropy increases always until it reaches a limit where it fluctuates (minutely) basically forever.

Expanding/open universe: Entropy increases always in the entire system (it can decrease in this universe, but that would be no different from any other open system like a deck of cards. You can increase order in a deck of cards at the expense of less order outside it. But the combined entropy of the deck of cards plus 'elsewhere' always increases)

baudrunner
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2015
All can be resolved if we would just accept the fact that the universe continues to create space/time, and matter, at its periphery, even as you read this, and that the periphery is so far that its light can never reach us, because all things must pass in time, and all time passes before us, but that process, the passage of time, continues.

That representation that you see in the image is a 3D illusion. It's actually projected in one dimension.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
we would just accept the fact that the universe continues to create space/time, and matter, at its periphery,

Does this mesh with observation? No. (And whether it even has a periphery is uncertain. The universe can well be finite but unbounded)

and that the periphery is so far that its light can never reach us

So it doesn't affect us in the least because the fastest any information can travel is by speed of light. Even if that ludicrous 'theory' were to hold (and it's so full of holes that it's basically one big hole) it would mean nothing to us because it would be over our event horizon.

It's actually projected in one dimension.

You really have no clue what a dimension is, do you? Please. Stop. Just stop. Go see a doctor or something. The stupidity of your postings are just getting worse and worse
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2015
Hi antialias, baudrunner, everyone. :)

I noticed a couple statements from antialias to baudrunner which piqued my interest as to what antialias meant to convey, exactly:
(... The universe can well be finite but unbounded)
I know that mathematicians can describe a spherical object as being finite and unbounded (because one can move along the surface forever even if the sphere is a finitely sized/scaled 'solid' object); but what exactly is a "finite but unbounded" UNIVERSAL 'object' which may in fact be spatially infinite and temporally eternal?

...it would mean nothing to us because it would be over our event horizon.
That seems more 'philosophical' than scientific stance. As the further/infinite universal "over our event horizon" may exist and be part of 'whole picture' if indeed the universe is infinite/eternal with equally infinite number of 'local observable' regions.

Can you elaborate on what you meant to convey by those two responses to baud, antialias. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.