Battle of the Big Bang Theories...

[Lardlad95]

I desperately hope that some of you guys are Cosmology buffs. Anyway. There is a new theory regarding the Big Bang. Two Cosmologists have developed a theory that turns the Big bang theory on it's head. Here is a snippet from the Article in Discover Magazine.

Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a radical idea that could wipe away these mysteries. They theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. What we think of as the Big Bang, they contend, was the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from ours—right next to us, and yet displaced in a way that renders it invisible. Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew. The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this endless expanse of time. ["Before the Big Bang", Michael D. Lemonick, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 02, February 2004]

Alot of their theory is rooted in string theory, a very interesting and very complex/confusing section of physics. Anyway, their theory is basically this.

Our universe is simply a 3 dimensional plane hanging in a multidimensional larger universe. Next to our universe are other branes, as gravity pulls the branes together they strike one another resulting in forces that would be equal to that of the traditional big bang. The resulting collision not only "starts' the universe it seperates the two branes. The Universe then continues on it's traditional course. However as the universe expands it eventually cools until it dies out. Meanwhile gravity has started to bring the two branes together again until the process starts over.

THey claim that the initial math has worked out thus far, and unlike other cyclictic the universe doesn't contract, it simply dies out like we expect the universe to do now.

I've read the entire article and the concept seems very interesting, and somewhat plausible. It would explain what happened before the big bang...and the pictures are cool(made by the same people who did the universe in a nutshell)

so what do you think, better or worse than the current theory?

[percept¡on]

It's all interesting to read about, but the level of mathematics and physics required to even have a slightly intelligent discussion on the subject is ridiculous... Basically whatever they tell us happened we gotta take their word for it. If they tell us the universe is actually a puff pastry expanding in a cosmic oven to be served to diners in some 16-dimensional Red Lobster I'm inclined to believe it until some other physicist comes along and says it's bullshit.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I was just checking out this site when I decided to come here to see if there was some interesting topic about this kind of things. What a coincidence!

Although I'm don't really know much on this, I think it is pretty interesting and might be accurate. I sort of agree with perception.

I'll do more research about this.

[Individual]

Hmm.. Red Lobster.

Anyhow

I am obviously no physicist, and I sure as hell have no scientific credentials.

But if I'm not mistaken, this theory sounds about like this..

Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a radical idea that could wipe away these mysteries. They theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. Therefore they just added more to the puzzle to appease the endless Star-Trek nerds that weren't quite believing in the Big Bang. They theorized that the more they add to the puzzle, the more confused the rest of us become, and can therefore go another hundred years without admitting that we have no fucking clue. Damn what a theory.

Here's my take.. Sure, we may very well be apart of endless other universes.

But can they explain how the other fucking universes were created?

Everything had to start somehow, so even if our universe wasn't created by the big bang.. How were all of the universes created?

Maybe all of the universes togethoer belong to something much larger.. Maybe something like one big fuckingconfusiverse. Now that makes more sense.

Even if our universe wasn't created by the big bang, what in the fuck created whatever the fuck created our fucking fucked up universe?

Something came from nothing? Don't think so. Just telling me that there is more to the puzzle is pushing it enough.

My theory.. Well it's simple..

The fuckingconfusiverse is the top of the line.






(or for atleast another fifty years)

[Lardlad95]

Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a radical idea that could wipe away these mysteries. They theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. Therefore they just added more to the puzzle to appease the endless Star-Trek nerds that weren't quite believing in the Big Bang. They theorized that the more they add to the puzzle, the more confused the rest of us become, and can therefore go another hundred years without admitting that we have no fucking clue. Damn what a theory.

Or perhaps they discovered a new alternative to conventional theories. What makes you so skeptical. All of cosmology has confirmed that the universe has a begining. The rate of expansion of the universe, and the cosmic radiation background support this. The problem is that we are looking for the cause of the bag, that is what they are trying to find out.

Here's my take.. Sure, we may very well be apart of endless other universes.

Well they may not be other universes, simply other branes. There is no garauntee that the physics in these branes are the same as ours or that they even contain matter.

But can they explain how the other fucking universes were created?

Your question would sound better if you asked how the branes were created instead of how the "universes" got started. We know how the universe started, a ginormous explosion happened that resulted in Quarks. Gluons and Leptons, which eventually formed protons, nuetrons, and electrons, which formed matter.

Everything had to start somehow, so even if our universe wasn't created by the big bang.. How were all of the universes created?

They aren't challenging the big bang, they are challenging the conventional theory of the big bang

Maybe all of the universes togethoer belong to something much larger.. Maybe something like one big fuckingconfusiverse. Now that makes more sense.

That is essentially what they are saying. That big "fuckingconfusiverse" is the fifth dimension in their theory.

Even if our universe wasn't created by the big bang, what in the fuck created whatever the fuck created our fucking fucked up universe?

The entire scheme of things could be cyclictic just like they are proposing our universe is. If it is then all of space and time is essentially infinite.

[DaCuBaN]

The cyclical model has always appealed to many people, for obvious reasons.

What makes you so skeptical. All of cosmology has confirmed that the universe has a begining. The rate of expansion of the universe, and the cosmic radiation background support this. The problem is that we are looking for the cause of the bag [bang?], that is what they are trying to find out.

Indeed - but his observations are quite accurate. Perception hit the nail on the head:

Basically whatever they tell us happened we gotta take their word for it

Indeed. Although to be honest it would make more sense to pat them on the head, tell them well done and give them a biscuit. The point is it's just another theory, we're really no closer to knowing - if even that is possible. If I told you that the unverse was made by god, would you believe me?

Scientific theorising is no different; mental masturbation. I'm not against it of course, there's nothing wrong with a good thrash...

Frankly, until someone answers the mystery of redshift, I'm disinclined to believe anything any cosmologist spouts.

[Lardlad95]

Indeed - but his observations are quite accurate. Perception hit the nail on the head:

No he didn't. He's comparing scientific theory, something that can be tested, to some well thought out conspiracy designed to keep us all guessing. If these theories are wrong they will be proven so, they are not developed to keep us guessing, instead they are developed because they are plausible given everything we know about physics and cosmology.

Indeed. Although to be honest it would make more sense to pat them on the head, tell them well done and give them a biscuit. The point is it's just another theory, we're really no closer to knowing - if even that is possible. If I told you that the unverse was made by god, would you believe me

?


The diffrence between cosmological and theological interpretations of the universe are gigantic. Religious theories regarding cosmology can't be proven and in fact have been disproven. Take the example of the book of Joshua chapter ten. In which he "commanded" the sun to stand still in the sky. There are so many things wrong with that section in regards to physics that it's astounding. Religious cosmology are nothing more than myths.

Actual cosmology on the other hand can be proven mathmateically and scientifically. If I were to go to a particle acceleator and collide an electron and a positron I could prove that anti matter and matter anihilate each other in a burst of energy when they meet. This isn't mere speculation, it can be proven. The expansion of the universe can be proven, the speed of light can be proven, the cosmic radiation background can be proven.

We are closer to knowing, alot closer than we were 400 years ago. KNowledge is an amalgamation of everything that has been discovered over the course of human existence. Simply because there is no unified theory that does not mean that we don't know something. We simply dont' know everything. Not to mention not all scientific theories become debunked with time. Newton's theories on gravitational forces still hold true today.

Frankly, until someone answers the mystery of redshift, I'm disinclined to believe anything any cosmologist spouts.

And what about the redshift do yo u find so mysterious?

[DaCuBaN]

[Perception] comparing scientific theory, something that can be tested, to some well thought out conspiracy designed to keep us all guessing

Perhaps I misinterpreted his post? I was under the impression that he was pointing out the obvious - that this is a theory, not scientific fact.

It doesn't make it false, but it should (rightly) cast doubt in my mind.

The diffrence between cosmological and theological interpretations of the universe are gigantic

I do agree...

The expansion of the universe can be proven, the speed of light can be proven, the cosmic radiation background can be proven

I believe they have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That doubt does however, still exist.

Knowledge is an amalgamation of everything that has been discovered over the course of human existence. Simply because there is no unified theory that does not mean that we don't know something. We simply dont' know everything. Not to mention not all scientific theories become debunked with time. Newton's theories on gravitational forces still hold true today.

Again, I don't dispute the fact. These theories have been far more rigorously tested of course than the one in question.

And what about the redshift do yo u find so mysterious?

Well... the phsyical impossibilities when you apply hubble's law, or applying the doppler effect in regards to quasars and redshift:

Linkage

Now where's my tin-foil cap...

[Louis Pio]

Maybe this chapter will interest some of you The Big Bang

It's from this book Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science

or this radiointerview with Eric Lerner author of "Big Bang Never Happened" on the Universe, plasma physics and fusion technology experiments
Eric Lerner

Unfortunately I don't feel I have enough knowlegde to engage in discussions like this, they always make my head hurt

[Lardlad95]

Sorry for the late reply, I made this post, saved it because my internet was fucking up...then forgot I had saved it.

It doesn't make it false, but it should (rightly) cast doubt in my mind.

I don't necassarily think that having doubts are wrong, I'm just wondering to what degree do these doubts manifest themselves?

Again, I don't dispute the fact. These theories have been far more rigorously tested of course than the one in question.

I wouldn't say that this theory is as true as any of the ones that haven been undeniably proven. However I do believe that when we look back these theories, and all of string theory will be important to cosmology.

Well... the phsyical impossibilities when you apply hubble's law, or applying the doppler effect in regards to quasars and redshift:

I'm not a cosmologist though I'll try my best to answer some of the arguements made in the website.

The redshift of quasars is supposedly due to the Doppler effect. If this is true, they are receding from us at speeds up to 99.99% of the speed of light. It would take unimaginable energy to accelerate objects larger than the solar system to such velocities. A cyclotron requires a city's worth of electricity to accelerate a few atoms to such speeds.

This arguement is assuming that the quasar it's self is moving. Rather the universe is expanding at the speed required to make the redshift work. Kind of like how right now I"m moving 1,000k an hour, simply because the earth it's self is moving that fast. I'm not generating the force to move that fast my self, but since i"m on the earth I am moving that fast. Similarly, quasars, galaxies, etc. Are moving at the speed of universes expansion. They aren't moving under their own force.

Quasars are relatively small (some known to be just a few light-months across) and yet appear to emit energy equivalent to the energy of entire galaxies. They wouldn't be considered to have such massive energies if they were relatively nearby. In other words, if our distance measurements to quasars is wrong, the whole concept of massive energy for quasars (which defies explanation&#33 disappears. In the 35 years since quasars were first discovered, they still are a complete mystery.

He doesn't give any arguement why they wouldn't give off as much energy if they were nearer. All i can say though is that Quasars are most likely a galaxy with a massive black hole at the center that emitts massive amounts of radiation. This is a consensus made by most Cosmologists.

Quasars are thought to be up to 20 billion light years away, but the estimated age of the universe, based on the Big Bang, is only about 15 billion years.

....Unless I'm misunderstanding him, this is utter bullshit. Light Years are a mesurement of distance, the universes' age is just that an age. The universe is well old enough for it to be the size that it presently is.

Also I'd like to note that the Hubble constant isn't actualley constant. The Rate of expansion slows over time. So I really hope that he isn't assuming that the Hubbale constant ("H" with subscript 0) is actualley constant.

Astronomers believe there are "massive black holes" at the center of most galaxies, and these have a gravitational force billions of times that of the sun. But astronomers have not definitely found even one small black hole yet, and have absolutely no idea how such a massive object could have formed within the estimated lifetime of the universe.

...They've discovered several black holes, Sgr A, is one example.

Astronomers claim that 90-99% of the mass of the universe is "missing" or invisible. They can't find it (because it doesn't exist)!

*Buzzz* Wrong again.They can't find 60-65% of the mass of the galaxy. Why? Because they are still working out theories regarding supper symmytry and other particles that exist. THis guy is a real jackass by the way.

According to Big Bang theorists, the universe is about 15 billion years old. But it is utterly impossible for the various structures in the universe (galaxies, galactic clusters, etc.) to have formed in this short time. This alone should invalidate the Big Bang theory!

Wrong. Galaxies didn't form one by one. A good deal of most of the galaxy formation began 400,000 years after the big bang. This was ample time for galaxies to form, especially since they were more tightly packed than they are now.

The Cosmic Background Radiation is used to "prove" that the Big Bang occurred. But the radiation should be "clumpy", to match the clumpiness of the universe. Instead it is extremely smooth. Also, the temperature of starlight was computed to be 3 degrees in 1926 by scientist Arthur Eddington. The CBR is 2.78 degrees - very close to Eddington's prediction, and far closer than George Gamow's Big Bang prediction of 5-30 degrees.

...Is he serious. The cosmic bacground radiation is "clumpy" several experiaments have proven this. For example the Boomerang project proved the universe wasn't smooth.



Seriously tell this guy to read a fucking book. My god did he stop studying cosmology in 1935? I suggest he reads Alpha and Omega: The search for the beginning and end of hte universe

Because this guy is using some seriously out of date material

[DaCuBaN]

Unfortunately I don't feel I have enough knowlegde to engage in discussions like this, they always make my head hurt

Believe me, I sympathise

Lardlad: What you failed to notice from the arguments on that page, silly as some of them are, is that quasars are meant to be 'faster than light' particles - all of modern science tells us that nothing moves faster than light. Similarly, it's impossible for an object to be 20 billion light years away in a 15 billion year old universe if this is the case - if light is the speed limit of the universe which cannot be broken, then nothing can be further away than 15 billion light years.

As to the discovery of black holes, I agree - but then this source looks like it hasn't been updated in years.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by DaCuBaN@Aug 26 2004, 10:53 PM

Believe me, I sympathise

Lardlad: What you failed to notice from the arguments on that page, silly as some of them are, is that quasars are meant to be 'faster than light' particles - all of modern science tells us that nothing moves faster than light. Similarly, it's impossible for an object to be 20 billion light years away in a 15 billion year old universe if this is the case - if light is the speed limit of the universe which cannot be broken, then nothing can be further away than 15 billion light years.

As to the discovery of black holes, I agree - but then this source looks like it hasn't been updated in years.

First of all I've never seen anyone describe quasays as a particle. Second the universe is probably 20 billion light years across. Third remember we are also moving away from the qusars it isn't just them moving away from us.

[Lardlad95]

up

[monkeydust]

I basically agree with Perception, in that the level of Mathematics necessary to have an inteligent discussion on this issue, not least to evaluate the mathematical validity of claims concerning string theory, is enormous.

In short, I think all that most of us can reasonably say is that they "might be right".

[h&s]

I basically agree with Perception, in that the level of Mathematics necessary to have an inteligent discussion on this issue, not least to evaluate the mathematical validity of claims concerning string theory, is enormous.

Damn right! I mean, does anyone have any idea how the computer they are using actually works? I certainly don't, and my brain feels like it wants to explode whenever I try to think about it. Fuck the universe, I want to know how stuff a little closer to home works.

[apathy maybe]

The Vatican says that the Big Bang theory works with Catholicism, so there is a reason not to like it .
But otherwise I can’t tell the difference between them. (As to belief and proving stuff, I believe that matter annihilates ant-matter, but I can’t prove it.)

I still say it doesn’t matter what the universe looks like, we are all still part of a computer program.

Understanding how a computer works is a lot easier then understanding complex mathematics, but they both require a lot of reading and practise to really understand them.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe@Sep 6 2004, 04:38 AM
The Vatican says that the Big Bang theory works with Catholicism, so there is a reason not to like it .
But otherwise I can’t tell the difference between them. (As to belief and proving stuff, I believe that matter annihilates ant-matter, but I can’t prove it.)

I still say it doesn’t matter what the universe looks like, we are all still part of a computer program.

Understanding how a computer works is a lot easier then understanding complex mathematics, but they both require a lot of reading and practise to really understand them.

You can prove that anti matter and matter anihilate one another. Go to a partical accelerator and I'm sure it will be proven to you once you understand exactley what they are doing.

Or take a partical physics course

[apathy maybe]

You really think that anyone would let me near a partical accelerator?

Once I understood what was going on yes, it could be proved to me. But as I don't, I have to take it on faith (and logic). And while physics is a hobby, I'm not taking a course in it for at least a few years, if ever.

[DaCuBaN]

Lardlad: Ignore anything I've said on this subject. I have a nasty habit of dropping dimensions when analysing subjects of this kind - it's a trait that's caught me out many, many times in the past - I tend to think in two dimensions.

I still dislike the big-bang theory though But I (finally) see what you were getting at.