The Big Bang Theory

Eastwood, help me out here. Are you just talking about bending spacetime? If so, then aren't you just talking about opening a wormhole?
 
Think of the universe as a giant matress. On that matress, place bowling balls and tennis balls and marbles and whatever else. Wherever these items are, the mattress dents in. This is very much how objects with gravity work with space time.

Say you label two spots on the mattress. A and B. You then get your kid to stand directly on the straight path between A and B. A and B then pull closer together. Have your Millenium Falcon travel across the new, shorter route.
 
I didn't know it had a name... I guess...
confused.gif


I'm just a hobbyist...
 
Yes. That is what I am talking about.

I don't like using the word wormhole. Makes it sound too Deep Space 9 and is less likely to be taken seriously when coming from a hobbyist. That is why I used the term "gravity well."
 
Raydog, you and I have had this conversation before... haven't we? This seems familiar.

In any event, if everything you can see in the entire universe, played in reverse results in all of the mass/energy being in the same place at the same time... how is that not a valid argument for the big bang theory?

Hey, even if everyone else here isn't interested, I would love to see your list of failings of the current model. I'm always interested in testing a paradigm.

Also, how does steady state deal with uniquely "old" bodies... like CMBR and Quasars? Also, where do all of the heavy elements come from? There are many parts of Steady State I find appealing, but as it has been presented to me in the past, it causes just as many problems as it answers. I'd love to hear your take.

===========================

Eastwood, I'm not denying your reasons for wanting to stear clear of "wormhole"... but don't let Trekkies shame you into giving up a word they stole in the first place.
 
Yup, I have it on my iPod right now in fact (read by Tyson). Good stuff.

RayDog, I'm going to take some time to read that list again, and then I might come back at you with some questions.
 
RayDog, I preface this with the explanation that I am a novice here. That said, I'm gonna go down the list with my reactions. I do this not to refute, but so I can understand where you are coming from.

The starlight problem - [Is the 2-3K background radiation in the microwave band, or is it just mixed spectrum 2-3K?]

The dark energy problems - What force is behind the accelerating expansion of the universe, and given such a force is a big bang needed to explain the expansion in the first place?
[Dark Energy fueled expansion is far weaker than any of the other four forces, and is not adequate to explain how matter escaped the gravity of other matter]

The dark matter problem
[Dark Matter is about 25%, but in any event, a refutation of DM requires a refutation of Relativity, doesn't it?]

The zero point energy problems - [ZPE is part of Quantum Mechanics, isn't it? I was unaware that SS was potentially the Grand Unified Theory, is that what you are saying?]

The singularity problem - [This would have to be a refutation of Relativity, not BB necessarily, right?]

The energy problem - [Singularities don't exist infinately.]

The matter problem - [I thought we have found examples of CP-invariance in nature. If that is the case, then this becomes a much smaller problem.]

The quantum red-shift problem - [Most of what I've read recently have rejected quantum redshift, and that normal voids and filaments can account for what we've seen. In any event, the quantization isn't well established, is it?]

The horizon problem - [Why isn't the pokiness of light not the obvious answer here? We can only see the photons which have reached us.]

The colliding galaxy problem - If all matter/energy is moving outward from a central point, how do galaxies end up headed toward each other.
[matter ISN'T moving outward from a central point, it is uniformly expanding. Galaxies collide because their local gravity is stronger than the effects of dark energy]

The flatness problem - [I was unaware that this is considered a problem, could you give me more here? Are you just asking "why flat and not open/closed?"]

The age problem - [I'd love some examples here, I'm not sure how to respond otherwise]

The microwave background radiation problem - [lower than it was originally predicted? Why wouldn't the answer be that the universe was older than they thought it was when then discovered the CMBR?]

The thermal state problem - [No answer here whatsoever. I've this filed under the "mysteries to be unlocked" heading. Best theory I've heard offered is that the BB doesn't just account for matter/energy but also spacetime. There simply "wasn't" before the BB.]

The helium-hydrogen ratio problem - [The theory is balanced against measurements. The new measurements don't invalidate the model, only change the data in.]

The baryon-photon ratio problem - [The theory is balanced against measurements. The new measurements don't invalidate the model, only change the data in.]

The density fluctuation problem - [Indeed, they arose from inflation]

The exotic relics problem - [The rarity of monopoles could allow their density to be so low, that we just haven't looked long enough (or well enough) to see one. That they haven't been seen isn't a problem, if they are never seen, it would be. We've only been looking for them for a short time cosmically, and we are still refining our methods]

The cosmological constant problem - [Because the constant isn't an effect of gravity, but of Dark Energy... which is much less powerful]

The Doppler red-shift problem - [I'd love examples here. The first pass at an answer is extreme gravity, which GR says acts just like velocity.]

The negative curvature of space problem - [I thought this was resolved after WMAP, the universe is not curved.]

The faster than light problem - ["some theories" are not the same as the standard model. That said, inflation specifically allowed for FTL travel and explained how it happened. It did not violate the standard model.]
 
As clever as we humans are, sometimes it seems our "laws of science" are just the latest version of the sun revolving around the earth; we model what we think we observe, until we think we observe something slightly more profound. We basically have theories that say X = Y, but you have to add 344 to Y due to "fudgions."
 
RayDog, I missed your point on the "singularity problem", you were not saying infinately old, rather infinately dense.

That said, your problem here is not with BB, but with Relativity, right? If so, I don't understand how SS resolves the problem.
 
Thank you for responding. I find this stuff rivetting.Starlight problem - I think you missed my point, temperature doesn't necessarily correspond to wavelength. If the 1920 scientists didn't put the radiation in the microwave band, then it isn't the same stuff.Dark Energy - Actually we do know that dark energy is weaker, because galaxies and galaxy clusters aren't expanding, but expansion is still geometric. Which is to say galaxies aren't ballooning up, and the galaxies behind them are on the standard hubble constant. This is only explanable if the dark energy is ever present, but weaker than gravity, et al.Dark Matter - The reason Dark Matter "exists" as a theory is to explain why galaxies can be so large. The gravity of the baryonic matter is not enough. So either "Dark Matter" exists and there is more mass than we are accounting for or Relativity is wrong, but BB theory in specific isn't the problem here. Does SS offer a better explanation for this phenomena?

ZPE - As long as the total result of the transaction is zero (as it is with ZPE) why is it incombant on GR to resolve the issue? I think I'm not understanding something here.

Singularity - So you problem isn't necessarily with the BB here, you are just pointing out that QM and GR don't know what to make of a singularity. I agree this is a problem. That said, there are singularities, and at least to the point of the schwartzchild radius, they behave as GR suggests they should. I don't have a problem with saying that the current model is incomplete, that much is obvious in fact. That said, singularities were not a part of any version of SS as I've read them. They are predicted in Gr and sure enough... they're there.

Singularity II - We don't know where the mass of the black holes came from?

Antimatter - True, but if the primordial substance decayed with CP-Invariance, it explains why one type of matter is preferred. Not all decay results in equal parts matter/antimatter. If however, CP-invariance is not in play... then you are right... this is a huge problem.

The horizon problem - You lost me here. BB explains the horizon we see exactly, SS doesn't. If the photons are only 13 billion years old, then that explains a 13 billion light year horizon. If the universe is infinately old (SS) then the horizon should also be infinte.

Colliding Galaxies - It isn't? Are you sure? i'll research this.

The Age Problem - Freedman refined her measurements back in 1996. This isn't a problem anymore.

Again, I have a problem as coming off as aggressive, RayDog. My memory is that you have a far better resume than I do in this area, and I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm just trying to get how the model as I understand it is failing. Thank you for humoring me in this.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

general35, the standard model says the universe is 13.7 billion years old. If we started "crunch" from where we are now, it should take a good long while... you're safe.
 
CMBR problem - I'll look into this. However, being a few billion years off in the estimation of the age of the universe would result in massive changes to the CMBR temperature.Density Fluctuation & Exotics Problem - I think you overstate your argument here. True it is based more on math than observation, but it is more than a "contrivance". Which is to say, it may be wrong, but it isn't without merit.

Doppler Redshift Problem - If Quasars are the primary examples then I think extreme local gravity is an excellent candidate explanation. That said, Quasar's are the fly in every theories ointment... including SS.

Negative Curvature - But again, weren't we saved from the theories when WMAP showed no negative curvature?
 
RayDog, I would classify your problems into three seperate groups.ReconcilableProblems which either don't seem to be large, or have been resolved in the last decade.The helium-hydrogen ratio problem - The data changed, but not the theory (the theory was refined, not redefined).The baryon-photon ratio problem - The data changed, but not the theory (the theory was refined, not redefined).The age problem - "Dating" the univere is a new field and required lots of measurements before accuracy could be achieved. By and large, most scientists age on the age at this point.The flatness problem - I still am not sure why this is a problem.The quantum red-shift problem - You and I agree this was a dodgy problem to begin with.
The zero point energy problems - ZPE is a product of QM and not GR, since it is a zero sum equation, I'm not sure why its GR's problem.

Standard Model Problems (or explanations of observed phenomena)
Not failings of the BB, as much as issues modern physics is still struggling with, that would have to be explained in any model.
The dark energy problems & The cosmological constant problem & The negative curvature of space problem - Three different definitions of the same problem. We've measured and judged the universe "flat" and yet things are expanding at geometric rate. If the universe is flat, then something must be pushing.
The dark matter problem & The colliding galaxy problem - On the galactic scale things are more attractive than they should be based on the matter we observe. Either there is more mass we can't see, or our understanding of relativity is incorrect.
The singularity problem & The energy problem - QM describes tiny things very well. GR describes massive things very well. Neither QM nor GR explain tiny massive things very well.
The Doppler red-shift problem - The quasar problem. We just don't have enough information on quasars to answer this. That said, the doppler shift of the most distant quasar is still inside the shift of the CMBR. which brings us to...

Cosmology Problems
Problems with the Big Bang Theory.
the starlight problem - I still need an source which says the '20s dudes predicted 2-3K of microwave radiation.
The microwave background radiation problem - I've looked and looked, and can't find anything to suggest this isn't just a miscalculation of age.
The matter problem - Could absolutely be a deal breaker.
The horizon problem - I still think this only a problem for SS and not BB.
The faster than light problem &The thermal state problem & The density fluctuation problem & The exotic relics problem - If you don't buy into inflation, then these things are mighty hard to explain.

FWIW, I would also consider adding:
The missing galaxies problem - Cold Dark Matter theory coupled with BB, says that large galaxies (like the milky way) should have hundreds of mini-galaxies orbiting them, to date we've only found 20 or so.

How do you feel about those groupings?
 
I didn't really understand half of what I read on this thread but it's awesome.

I probably watch 4-5 "universe" type shows a month and can't get enough of them.

Can anyone recommend a book or books that a lay person could read and, at least, partially grasp. In other words, minimal math and great verbal explainations.

Gracias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top