Da big bang

[cmacq]

Toss me a bone here people...

Right than, what may the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), black holes, type Ia supernovas, and the Planck Time element of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) all have in common? This is one of the many reasons why I can't buy into the overall BBT. I won't even start with the PC bull that as a giant social cockroach has eaten away the intent of the copernican principle.

[Ironside]

Toss me a bone here people...

Right than, what may the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), black holes, type Ia supernovas, and the Planck Time element of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) all have in common? This is one of the many reasons why I can't buy into the overall BBT. I won't even start with the PC bull that as a giant social cockroach has eaten away the intent of the copernican principle.

You tell me. I'm not sure how you link Ia supernovas and black holes together with the BBT.

The LHC will try to get high enough energy to be compareable with the Plank Time, that is when all the fundamental forces ( gravity, electromagnetism strong and weak interaction forces) couldn't be differented from eachother. Or to be more exact, after the Plank Time in the BBT was when you could separate gravity from the rest.

Black holes are simply gravity wells that light cannot escape from, although mass as we know it cannot exist inside it either.

Ia supernova is simply a supernova that occurs when a white dwarf has gathered enough mass from its neighbour in a binary system, this will happen at a speciffic mass. This makes them really good to meassure distances.

I'm not sure were you're going with the copernican principle, are you claiming that Earth is special in it's place of the universe or?

I can go into things that a theory about the universe needs to explain, but I start with asking you if you consider universe to be eternal or not? Gives me different focus points.

[cmacq]

I'm not sure were you're going with the copernican principle, are you claiming that Earth is special in it's place of the universe or?

No I'm not saying that the Earth is a special place to view the universe, as actually I think it to be an extremely poor place to view the universe. But recently the copernican principle has been subverted to mean that the Earth is as good as any other place to view the universe. It simply is not. As an example, its a bit akin to studing the marketing of fine foods in New York City in AD 2005, from the inside of a rice cake, thats being baked in a stone oven in 14th century BC western China. The copernican principle was not intented to mean that there are not far better places to view the universe than Earth.


For the other, come on, toss me a bone here, they all seem to have something in common.

best to all

CmacQ

[Ironside]

No I'm not saying that the Earth is a special place to view the universe, as actually I think it to be an extremely poor place to view the universe. But recently the copernican principle has been subverted to mean that the Earth is as good as any other place to view the universe. It simply is not. As an example, its a bit akin to studing the marketing of fine foods in New York City in AD 2005, from the inside of a rice cake, thats being baked in a stone oven in 14th century BC western China. The copernican principle was not intented to mean that there are not far better places to view the universe than Earth.

As we are pretty much stuck inside the universe the only true downside Earth have as a single point observation place is that the milky way is in the way. Having multiple observation points would help of course, but that's a bit hard to fix.

For the other, come on, toss me a bone here, they all seem to have something in common.

best to all

CmacQ

They are theories?

[cmacq]

As we are pretty much stuck inside the universe the only true downside Earth have as a single point observation place is that the milky way is in the way.

So, I wonder what effect might the milky way have on very distant incoming light and other sundrys?

They are theories?

There are always theories. What might they be? They all have a small little something in common.

[Mediolanicus]

Returning to the big bang, I've yet to see any argument that adequately supports it?

George Smoot and his team discovered a background radiation of 3Kelvin in the universe. These are the so-called "wrinkels in time", which are the left overs of the massive warmth radiation that was transmitted in the in the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe. Smoot won the Nobleprize in Physics for this discovery.

For a good and very accessible book I must refer to that "Wrinkels in Time", written by George Smoot and Keay Davidson. It only requires a very basic knowlegde to understand and gives a good overview of all the theories about the universe, as well as telling the story of the search and finding of this back ground radiation.

[cmacq]

Smoot won the Nobleprize in Physics for this discovery.

No reflection, to be sure yet...
Much cheapened in more recent times, as weren't Albert Gore II and Yasser Arafat provided with this once vaulted prize? If a person spends 20 years of their life looking for something very far away where no one else can go, isn't it just great they find it near the end? Sorry, can't address this right now, i've a few things to take care of. Maybe, there is another that might be more able at this time?

best to all
C macQ

[Mediolanicus]

The fact that he got a noble prize was not an argument, it was merely some information about the scientist.

Read the book, it give a good overview of all the theories about the universe (big bang and steady state being the most popular).

I agree that sometimes you only "find" what you search. But the fact is that the background radiation is there.

[Ironside]

No reflection, to be sure yet...
Much cheapened in more recent times, as weren't Albert Gore II and Yasser Arafat provided with this once vaulted prize? If a person spends 20 years of their life looking for something very far away where no one else can go, isn't it just great they find it near the end? Sorry, can't address this right now, i've a few things to take care of. Maybe, there is another that might be more able at this time?

best to all
C macQ

No ,they did not get the Nobel price in Physics, those 2 did get the Peace price, the only Nobel price that isn't a scientific one.

And the funny thing with cosmic radiation is that it was found by mistake by some other guys, years after it was predicted to exist by the Big Bang theory.

So, I wonder what effect might the milky way have on very distant incoming light and other sundrys?

The milky way disturbs around 30-40% of the visual field, but that's very hard to avoid as you would otherwise need an observation point far outside a galaxy.

About distant light also being very old, it's pretty hard to avoid for a single point observer. The gravity pull isn't that great in the light coming from the sides and is the same on all light coming from that part of space.

There are always theories. What might they be? They all have a small little something in common.

Gravity? Astrophysics?
Unless you're going to give some more meat on this I'm gonna give this up, for all I know your connection could be so bizzare that I would laugh for a week if I heard it.

Oh, should I focus on things that indicates a non-eternal, non-steady state universe or should I focus on things indicating that universe was born through a Big Bang?

[Mediolanicus]

Oh, should I focus on things that indicates a non-eternal, non-steady state universe or should I focus on things indicating that universe was born through a Big Bang?

The former. So much more interesting and so much "closer" to us. The big bang (which was actually very small at the beginning and quite soundless) is something far away in time, which we are trying to reconstruct with what we now about the universe today.
Which brings us to the theory of a non-eternal, non-steady universe.
And I think that theory pretty much proves the big bang too.

Please elaborate on the subject. You've got me interested. I know more than the average person of the subject (I learned it from a boo-que), but I always want to learn more.

[cmacq]

Still off, but you may have been moving in the right direction, so I'll help a bit. In the most simple terms, think of the setting of a very little Bang and ask how is this different from that of the Big Bang. Then ask what was there before the Big Bang? Now ask if there was one Big Bang, could there have been others? What are the reasons pro and con considering morphology, distortion, relativity, prospective, and balance out all the nearby moving parts and a few of the variables. And, of course disregard all of the unknowns, as I'm sure these spare parts are of no importance, whatsoever.

Not to draw too fine a point about debate, but my address in a general sense, to the invocation of the Nobel, was designed to demonstrate its irreverence to the current discussion. Advancing this tact further, only serves to exacerbate this point.

Yes Ironside gravity, but please elaborate.

sorry no time right now to be less than cryptic

cheers

CmacQ

[PBI]

I must say, cmacq, I hope you can find some time at some point to set out clearly and explicitly your objections to the Big Bang, and to lay out your alternative theory which does a better job, together with your reasoning for it. I'm afraid I must say that I am a little stumped by how your "cryptic" questions are relevant.

Little Big Bangs? Would be very interesting to study one, but as no one knows a way of making one it doesn't seem like a very useful thing to speculate about (the LHC, contrary to popular belief, certainly does nothing of the sort).

Other Big Bangs, and possible other universes besides this one? Again an interesting hypothesis, but since we are restricted to observing in this universe, an ultimately untestable one. The same is true for discussion of what happened before the Big Bang.

I'm afraid that the Big Bang, flawed as you claim it is, is still the best (or at least, "least worst") theory that has thus far been suggested in this thread. Until you can suggest a better one the current theory stands regardless of its flaws.

[Mediolanicus]

Take the situation before the big bang :

We can't imagine that, but there must have been something. Although that something might qualify to us as nothing. This nothing doesn't obey any of the laws of nature we know and doesn't have any of the dimensions we know. There is no distance, no volume, no time.

Big Bang :
Something must have happened somewhere in this nothing, which made it, or part of it, into our universe. Or maybe our universe just developed inside this nothing. - insert theory that explains an expanding universe with a beginning -

Outside our universe :
Our universe is not endless, so there must still be "nothing" outside of it.
Our universe is, as far as we can calculate, limitless. Being all turned into itself (I can't explain this properly, I'm not an astrophysicist and not a native English speaker, but it has something to do with relativity).
Therefore we can't leave our universe. Therefore light can't leave the universe either and we can't see what's outside the universe.

Little big bangs :
There are many theories about parallel universes and other universes next to us. They all have one thing in common. We shall never even be able to form a hypothesis about it that can be supported by what we can know.

Birth - Grow - Shrink - Crush :
Also a popular theory is the theory that we are part of something recurrent.
But that would require that our universe implodes in the future. And considering with what we now know, that seems unlikely.
Although science doesn't know that much about this all.
If they calculate the stability of the universe, taking in account all the visible mass and the volume of the universe they can see, the solution tells us that the universe imploded seconds after it started to exist.
Hence the whole debate about "dark matter", which would be 99% of the whole mass in our universe.

These are just a few thoughts, any comments or corrections?
Sorry if there are any (language)mistakes, as I said, I'm not a native English speaker.

Anyway cmacq, I think the discussion you want, however interesting, is rather something for philosophers than for scientists.

[cmacq]

Anyway cmacq, I think the discussion you want, however interesting, is rather something for philosophers than for scientists.

Pardon, are you saying that the creation of something, in the form of an isolated flat bubble, out of nothing is called science?

[Mediolanicus]

Anything that we can see, can be scientifically examined. The universe can be seen, so it can be scientifically examined. Your possible other big bangs can't be seen, and thus can't be scientifically examined.

That's what I mean.

I'm not saying the big bang is "the truth" either, but the consequences of "a beginning" are seen. And the big bang theory is just the name of most likely cause for these consequences.
And yes, this is science. The possible first minute of the big bang has been calculated using all the information they've got.
It's not the UC Berkeley's Chess And Science Club on weed that makes those theories.


What actually are you trying to say?

That we can't know?
True.
But we can't know that Ceasar conquered Gaul too, we can only presume, because he wrote a book and other people wrote books about him.

That the universe was created on 23th October, 4004BC at 9 o'clock in the morning? (date by Bishop James Ussher and Dr. John Lightfoot)
Anyway, that God (any God) created it?
You'd have to be God to know if you exist in the first place...


And what is your alternative theory? Please tell us. As you said "we are moving in the right direction." What is this "right direction"?

But don't just say things like "pfff, Nobel price... If Al Gore wins one, it's worth nought" and "pfff, you call that science?".
About these arguments I can only say one thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM ;)


Oh, and cmacq, I noticed it sometimes could seem a bit like I'm attacking you, but that's not the case, I must assure you. Internet isn't very suitable for having such difficult argument.

[cmacq]

Oh, and cmacq, I noticed it sometimes could seem a bit like I'm attacking you, but that's not the case, I must assure you. Internet isn't very suitable for having such difficult argument.

Indeed, not to worry as I never take offense. I understand the nature of this media.

It's not the UC Berkeley's Chess And Science Club on weed that makes those theories.

No, but there have been some very important changes in how research funding is awarded in the last 30 yrs. Unfortunately, in far too many cases this has impacted on academic staffing based on personal attributes rather that merit. Often many perceive the need to make a big splash, or to draw attention, no matter what their data may actually indicate. Of course, as always this is overlaid by academic natural selection whereby survival is far more often based on theoretical conformity than objective analysis. Overall, this has significantly altered the direction and narrowed the scope of research in many fields.

Personally, within my particular field I along with others, continue to work to correct interpretations of research conducted in the early 1990s. It was somewhat understood that there were significant problems with these interpretations at the time they were reviewed. Nonetheless, these interpretations have become somewhat imbedded in the literature. I addressed what I considered the most important aspect, the basic chronology, several years ago (I may add an endeavor that won me no new friends). However, if one were to check the current literature today, they will still find much of the corpus of the 1990s synthesis relatively intact (strangely with the inclusion of my chronology which on close inspection make the 1990 interpretations completely untenable). The real problem is that once something has been reviewed and gets into the literature it takes ten times more effort and time to correct the record. In fact, I’ve yet another meeting tomorrow morning in Phoenix that pertains to correcting that record.

But don't just say things like "pfff, Nobel price... If Al Gore wins one, it's worth nought" and "pfff, you call that science?".

Actually, the Gore Nobel is an excellent example in every detail, including the omission and falsification of critical data, of the altered direction and narrowed scope of research I reference above. By the way this Gore stuff has had its indirect impact on my research as well. Don’t fool yourself as in some disciplines; review for some researchers is little more than a rubber stamp or grammar/spell check. I think the real problem is that under current conditions, once a very marginal or entirely incorrect theory becomes imbedded it quickly worsens the scenario outlined above by further diverting and narrowing research to the point that may become nearly impossible to remove it from the literature.

Sorry, I must run for now

CmacQ

[Ironside]

The former. So much more interesting and so much "closer" to us. The big bang (which was actually very small at the beginning and quite soundless) is something far away in time, which we are trying to reconstruct with what we now about the universe today.
Which brings us to the theory of a non-eternal, non-steady universe.
And I think that theory pretty much proves the big bang too.

Please elaborate on the subject. You've got me interested. I know more than the average person of the subject (I learned it from a boo-que), but I always want to learn more.

You probably know several of these points, but they still need an explaination, that atleast a universe with a beginning gives.

Olber's paradox. In short, if the universe is infinite, eternal and filled with stars, why can we se darkness in the sky?

The red-shift of course.

The hydrogen-helium concentration, it's about 75%-25%, impossible to get by star fusion of hydrogen, as the helium is fusioned to heavier compounds. An eternal universe would then need to create matter in that composition.

Population II and III stars, aka why does it only exist stars with lower amount of heavier compounds, that's small and appears old?

Why is it more and smaller galaxies in the old universe? Alternativly, why does this happen in a circular distance from Earth?

Bah I knew I should've checked it out, I meant population I and II stars, population III haven't been discovered yet (Thanks to the logic in astronomy it's the oldest ones).

[Mediolanicus]

Some good points there Ironside.

Notable exception with the red-shift being the blue shift of part of the Andromeda galaxy.

I'm going to try and find something useful on those population II and III stars because that's the point about which I know very little.
Something with the oldest stars being superheavy or something or other is all I know.


CmacQ, I totally agree that nothing can be taken for granted. A theory stays a theory and in casu it is almost certainly not flawless. On the contrary. And any corrections, changes take a while to be accepted. That's a fact in all things of life, I guess.
What is your chronology? And how does it make the mainstream interpretations untendable?
Please share us your views.

[cmacq]

My chronology pertained to a relatively unrelated field. If you are still interested I can PM you more information. I used it as an example of how the process works. Actually, near universal acceptance of this chronology occurred very quickly, as the data was very clear and my argument very convincing, but it took several years to amass the data and write. Now, to address the other points, as this is a numbers game and to remove any doubt, I've been collecting data for the last 11 yrs, and have just started the write-ups.

Returning to why I don't buy the BBT, given the nature of the event, why do some interior structures appear much older than the construct as a whole? The estimated date of the event is also not supported by the general morphologies of distant galaxies.

out the door

CmacQ

[Mediolanicus]

Well, you've got me interested, so if you find the time, please do PM me.

[cmacq]

I'm a bit preoccupied but I will, when I get a break.

[Mediolanicus]

As I said : when you find the time!

[Viking]

The hydrogen-helium concentration, it's about 75%-25%, impossible to get by star fusion of hydrogen, as the helium is fusioned to heavier compounds. An eternal universe would then need to create matter in that composition.

I'm not sure what that means; but it made me think of the fact that; as we get more and more generations of stars, they'll be just heavier and heavier to to the point that they cannot fuse any matter anymore; and I assume that a fission star is impossible?

[PBI]

I suppose that's true, but not that surprising really; no source of energy is ever inexhaustible. IIRC the turning-point where the binding energy of the nucleus is at its minimum is iron; anything lighter than iron can fuse to make heavier elements, and anything heavier can fission or decay into lighter elements. This is why elements heavier than iron can only be made in supernovae, because it's energetically unfavourable for them to form by fusion. I believe this is how we know our star is at least 2nd generation, because our solar system contains heavy elements.

Incidentally, if you are following this thread this story may interest you:

Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

[Faust|]

My chronology pertained to a relatively unrelated field. If you are still interested I can PM you more information. I used it as an example of how the process works. Actually, near universal acceptance of this chronology occurred very quickly, as the data was very clear and my argument very convincing, but it took several years to amass the data and write. Now, to address the other points, as this is a numbers game and to remove any doubt, I've been collecting data for the last 11 yrs, and have just started the write-ups.

Returning to why I don't buy the BBT, given the nature of the event, why do some interior structures appear much older than the construct as a whole? The estimated date of the event is also not supported by the general morphologies of distant galaxies.

*edit* I'm thinking it has something to do with either the speed of light or our measurement of (or estimates of) big distances using light... You're saying that we are incorrectly assuming that all light reaching us travelled an average speed of c in getting to us?

[cmacq]

*edit*You're saying that we are incorrectly assuming that all light reaching us travelled an average speed of c in getting to us?

No, what I'm saying is; based on the entire math (including that involving morphological formation), the projected relative date of the theoretical Big Bang Event is much more recent than the projected age of the galactic structures found within the result of said event. This is not a mater of simply revising the date of the theoretical event to fit the evidence. This is because the BB Event's relationship to the result is largely exacted by the math (distance).

You see the BBT was designed to mathematically explain only the relative distance between distant galactic structures hypostasized to be moving away from a common starting point. Of course within that context the age of individual galactic structures was not important. For the BBT to work mathematically in relation to individual galactic structures one would only have to rearrange the physical order of the universe to fit the theory. Or, one could physically restructure many of the galactic structures that we can perceive to a much earlier state. And, that may have an impact on our little take of the Copernican Principle.

Then again it might be a tad easier, that if the math does not fit, one must acquit this BBT to the dust bin of Turtle Back Theories. I’m not real sure if the fact that we are viewing these structures at different chronological stages is taken into account, which would throw the BBT even more out of wack. Faust, the assumption surrounding the light thing is an entirely different topic of why the BBT is a dead end. Initially, I had hoped to move more via the breadcrumb in a direction to explain rather than to disprove. This rather stenotic colloquy seems to dictate that this shall not be the way we proceed.

To view this topic in a light, other than the Doppler, please see the Compton effect.

CmacQ

[Faust|]

I see... very interesting. Thanks very much!

[cmacq]

To explain a bit more.

The cosmological red shift, explained as a result of the Doppler Effect (DE), is often used as a proof of the BBT. However, given all the known variables this observation is most likely a direct result of the Compton Effect. Briefly, the Compton Scattering (CS) or Compton Effect (CE) is represented by a decrease in energy, which is congruent with an increase in the wavelength of X-ray or gamma ray photons, when they interacts with matter. The extent of the wavelength increase is called the Compton Shift (CSt). Although Nuclear Compton Scattering (NCS) exists, CS typically refers only to the interaction of electrons within a given atom. The CE was observed by Arthur Holly Compton in 1923 and later verified by his graduate student Y. H. Woo. Arthur Compton earned the 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics for documenting this observation.

Inverse Compton Scattering (ICS) has also been observed, whereas photons gain energy, and correspondingly decrease wavelength upon interaction with matter. Overall, the CE is important because it demonstrates that light cannot be explained as only a wave phenomenon. The alternative Thomson Scattering theory of an electromagnetic wave scattered by charged particles, doesn’t explain the observed change in wavelength. In contrast, Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light behaves as a stream of particles, whose energy is proportional to a given frequency.

Herein, the physical mechanics of the CE represent an interaction between electrons and high energy photons that result in the transference of energy, realized as the retraction of the electrons and a directional change of the photons that remain charged, so that the overall momentum is conserved. If the photon retains enough energy, the process may repeat, as in this scenario, the electron is viewed as either free or loosely bound. If the photon has less, yet sufficient energy, in general only a few electronvolts comparable to that of visible light, it can eject an electron from its host atom completely, a process known as the Photoelectric Effect, rather than the CE.

The CE has been used to explain the red shift observations of bright very long wavelength extragalactic radio waves. It has also provided an explanation for the red shift emission of quasars and our own sun. Interestingly, quasars may actually be much closer than their red shift may suggest due to being surrounded by a gaseous atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This produces the unusual red shift as light transverses an atmosphere composed of concentrated electrons and loses energy to these electrons as per the CE.

Our sun’s red shift is obviously not due to the Doppler Effect, as it’s not moving away from us. This phonon demonstrates a variation in magnitude that corresponds to the number of electrons that lay directly along a given line of sight. Visually, these are fewest at the solar center and reach a maximum at the extremity where we view the thickest part of the sun's atmosphere. Solar electrons are concentrated by gravity with the greatest density near the sun's photosphere to produce the sun's intrinsic red shift. Similarly, the quasar red shift and other bright, hot young stars' "K effect" intrinsic red shift seem to represent concentrated atmospheric electrons at or very near the surface, again inspired by the CE.

Now to attribute the cosmological red shift to the CE, intergalactic space must have a given density of free electrons and/or positrons. Thus, the further light travels through this seemingly transparent medium, the greater the red shift, as Hubble's Law provides. The presence of electrons and positrons in intergalactic space was demonstrated by observations of electron-positron annihilation gamma rays coming from above our galactic plane. This was observed from the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory which is in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere. Although intergalactic space was once thought to be a vacuum, now we understand it’s actually filled with clouds of high velocity gas that contain molecular hydrogen. This gas is thought to come from the condensation of hydrogen atoms made up of free electrons and protons. When light hits these free electrons, as per the CE, it produces the red shift.

Thus, because of the variables the CE convincingly removes the DE as an explanation of the observed red shift phenomenon, as a proof of the BBT.

I hope this helps.


CmacQ

[Rhyfelwyr]

I still can't understand why anything exists at all.

[cmacq]

That's the way I look at it, as well.