We’ve all heard of the claim of “settled science” when it comes to global warming/climate change, and we’ve all heard of the “Big Bang Theory”, and I’m not just talking about the popular TV show. The scientific theory goes all the way back to 1927.
This is an artist’s concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development. Credit: NASA
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe. It states that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point from which the Universe has been expanding ever since. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the 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. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the Universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe going forward from that point on. (Source: Wikipedia)
Now, it seems there’s a challenge to this ‘settled’ science, and a new quantum equation predicts the universe has no beginning.
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a “Big Bang” did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Now how do we get the Climateers to learn how to question their flawed basic premises?
Brilliant use of the word “Climateer”. Not sure if it is your creation but it solves several problems at once.
1) Keeps us from stooping to their level and using harsh stereotypical labels like “denier”
2) Is akin to “puppeteer” as they are the puppets of a political agenda
3) Actually refers to the issue at hand unlike “skeptic” and “denier”
4) I would never be embarrassed to use it
Thanks!!!!
RoHa
February 10, 2015 4:25 pm
Do I have to be the first to mention the Great Green Arkleseizure?
Or:
FORD:
Yeah, well, Forget that. I mean do you know how the universe began for a kick off?
ARTHUR:
Well probably not
FORD:
Alright imagine this: you get a large round bath made of ebony.
ARTHUR:
Where from? Harrod’s was destroyed by the Vogons.
FORD:
Well it doesn’t matter –
ARTHUR:
So you keep saying!
FORD:
No, No listen. Just imagine that you’ve got this ebony bath, right? And it’s conical.
ARTHUR:
Conical? What kind of bath is –
FORD:
No, no, shh, shhh, it’s, it’s, it’s conical okay? So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that. And when it’s full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole… but the thing is…
ARTHUR:
Why?
FORD:
No, the clever thing is that you film it happening. You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it. But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.
ARTHUR:
Backwards?
FORD:
Yeah, neat you see. So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards, out of the plug hole and fill the bath… amazing.
ARTHUR:
And that’s how the universe began?
FORD:
No. But it’s a marvellous way to relax.
I love this subject!
When you make the assertion that everything came from “NOTHING” you really need to understand that nothing is “NOTHING”. It is not a vacuum, or nearly empty space, it is nothing. NOTHING AT ALL.
So we have everything and it came from Nothing at all.
We can propose a bouncing universe but the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
So now what?
Oh the mulitiverse. I would refer you all to the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem.
In any and every case case there is a beginning.
Fr Georges Henri Lemaitre, The Catholic priest and physicist who invented the Big Bang was right about that.
In the words of Atheist Leonard Susskind, the first cause that created our anthropic universe is
1) unknowable;
2) God; (yes he said this)
3) incredibly and absurdly improbably accidental;
4) It will be known someday, maybe.
Alternatively from Robert Spitzer SJ, a 1 hour lecture on the whole state of the art of science of creation.
Enjoy watching a polymath jesuit discuss contemporary cosmology.
BB is not everything from nothing. The BBT theory is everything was created out of an infinite energy unquantifiable beyond cause and affect something, the alternative is (steady state) everything always was and came from nothing, it just was. Cyclical theory is just a different version of steady state.
In this you have identified what philosophers call the cosmological argument, which supports everything coming from an infinite beyond cause and affect something, which some call God.
You say, “Cyclical theory is just a different version of steady state.”
Nope. It also had a beginning. The “cycle” must have a starting point. I refer you to Vilenkin. or Susskind for that matter.
Science and observation is on my side. Cyclic theory, has no evidence and, as such, is speculative.
Also you say” BB is not everything from nothing.”. Yes is it. With the BB, came time, space, energy matter etc. … everything. Before the BB there wasn’t even a before. There was nothing. And nothing is very difficult to apprehend. Saying that there was anything else before BB is….religion or belief.
Alexander Vilenkin tackles several models with his BVG theorem and concludes that it is most likely that the universe had a beginning. You can watch it below, and he specifically deals with the cyclic model, the emergent model, & static. See time stamp 34:19 for his conclusions.
I disagree Paul. All the evidence leading up to the singularity points to an infinite energy solution, existing beyond the laws of cause and affect, beyond the constraints of time. On the other hand steady state assumes no beginning, and everything inclusive (all things that can be quantified) has no cause.
As to cyclical theory, I have often heard it expressed as removing the need for a beginning. If some wish to eliminate that aspect, and define a beginning, it to likely demands infinite energy solutions.
David,
The beauty of the BVG Theorem (you should watch) is that it is independent of the dynamics.
Now consider the experimental results.
We have an ever expanding (at an accelerating rate) universe. That empirical observation kills the cyclic and static models. Interestingly, Monseigneur LeMaitre and Eddington considered the cyclic universe back in 1933, 30 years prior to Wilson and Penzias’ background radiation discovery.
The trouble with the static and cyclic models is that they contradict observation. Proponents of these 2 models (like Fred Hoyle) suffer the narrow mind dilemma. They detest the implications of the First Cause so much that they will defy the most fundamental elements of science to advance a belief. That is not science.
Further, adherents of the “no-first-cause” camp will speculate, without evidence, of all sorts prior-to-BB circumstance to patch over bad science and avoid observation. That is why I like Leonard Susskind’s explanation of the razer edge anthropic fine tuning. He is honest about it and sticking to the open mind which science requires.
Alexander Vilenkin, extrapolates the geodesics based on now as a boundary condition. Statics are unstable.
It is a difficult video, but you will be well served in listening.
Cheers
democritus
February 10, 2015 4:41 pm
Don’t know if this was covered earlier, but the new theory does not question the big bang. It just says that the big bang did not start from a singularity. But the new theory Anthony links to does not question the big bang theory. This link does a better job of describing the theory, I think. http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning
tz
February 10, 2015 4:42 pm
Next thing you know, they’ll be calling Piltdown Mann a hoax.
The problem is when the science isn’t settled, or requires assumptions, but instead of arguing for what the exact state of discovery and how, people get defensive instead of reasoning. Sometimes the truth is obscure, but I tend to go with the side willing to argue the points. (The movie Expelled is worth viewing as is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw which someone in the Climate Debate needs to do a similar version, or something along “you can trust climatological models… http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3UXl0oMYPLs/SXZHIRt_oKI/AAAAAAAAAFw/j6kmhIdEQTI/s1600-h/ATHEIST+LOGIC.jpg).
Big Bang is old news: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ – it is simple and explains the data. Steady State was Dogma until a Jesuit’s theory started sounding right. And Plate Tectonics was proposed and ridiculed in 1905.
Anthony,
The Big Bang theory was never settled science.
The Big Bang theory might be the orthodox explanation for the beginning of the universe at the moment but it was never “settled”.
That there might be a view that challenges the Big Bang explanation is not a problem.
It would be a worry if there weren’t other views.
Science is never settled, that’s why it’s science.
It is always open to challenge.
You are strong on this regarding climate science.
So what’s the problem if there is robust discussion in astrophysics ?
Hey James-
You might consider washing y0ur hands before you dig into that popcorn, since it’s obvious to all us yokel anti- heaterists that you just dropped in to fling some poo and see what happens next.
noloctd
February 10, 2015 5:15 pm
Meh. More models. Other than that, not much new here.
TRG
February 10, 2015 5:17 pm
I think we have a whole lot of things to learn, the origin of the universe and how our climate works not least among them.
I be a mere lay person, so please excuse my following question:
Is space considered to have been contained within the pre-BB singularity and burst forth with all the other stuff, or was space there all along as it is now, and contained the singularity?
I like Carl Sagan’s take: “The universe is finite, but unbounded.”
JohnTyler
February 10, 2015 5:56 pm
Left to its own devices, nature always seems to “decay” in to a state of greater disorder. Yet somehow, after the big bang, nature “ordered” itself into universes, galaxies, stars, solar systems, etc.
It’s as if a massive star exploded, sending its matter, willy nilly into space at very great velocities, only to have this star-stuff “organize” itself into some sort of coherent mass or several or a great many coherent masses.
This seems highly improbable and totally at odds with what has been observed anywhere in the observable universe ( unless some PRE-EXISTING significant object- a black hole, a star, etc., with a large gravitational force pulls space stuff into some sort of “coherent” mass.)
Further, if E= mc^2 , at the time of the big bang, it is really tough to imagine an “E” so immensely huge, that the “m” produced is equal to the present day mass ( including dark matter- whatever that is) of the ENTIRE universe.
Maybe it was a massive star – a trillion , trilion, trillion trillion x 10^100 times the size of our sun that blew up. Or maybe a whole bunch of very large stars collided and blew up – that was the big bang.
But that would still not explain how an explosive event produces somewhat ” organized ” outcomes.
I am NOT a scientist , so perhaps someone out there in the ether (dark matter cloud) can tell me where I am going wrong!!!
Your pertinent observation has led to some believing that the likelihood of the Universe being 5 minutes old, is much greater than the likelihood that it is 13 billion years old. It’s a funny old Universe we live in 🙂
Its called evolution. Evolution always go the other way. Its like Merlin in King Arthur. While everyone else gets older Merlin get younger. You just have to believe it – like religion.
It is arguable that, given sources of energy, the tendency of matter in the universe is toward increasing complexity, not the reverse. Hence we find complex organic molecules in asteroids.
/Mr Lynn
Genesis 1
The Beginning
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said, “Let there be Max Photon,” and there was Max Photon.
4. God saw that Max Photon was good — really good! — and he separated Max Photon from the Darkness.
5. God called Max Photon “Day,” and the Darkness he called “Night.” And there was Happy Hour, and there was evening, and there was morning — the first Day.
6. And it’s pretty much been downhill ever since.
BTW, I told The Dude not to divide by zero, but He didn’t listen.
Tom In Indy
February 10, 2015 6:10 pm
Beginning and End depend on time, and time is an invention of man.
If you accept that things cannot spring forth from nothing, then it must be the case that either God has always existed, or whatever came before the big bang has always existed.
There is a cogent argument that time is a perception, rather than “real” (whatever that means).
Interesting but difficult read by Brit physicist Julian Barbour, The End of Time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time_%28book%29
though the idea was much debated in philosophy circles around the turn of the 19thC.
Arno Arrak
February 10, 2015 6:17 pm
I have nothing against big bang per se, as I have nothing against global warming per se. My objection in both cases has to do with inappropriate introduction of causing mechanisms. In the case of global warming it is a non-existent greenhouse warming. In the case of the Big Bang it is an imaginary “inflation.” Technically, the Big Bang paper had to be withdrawn because the mistook intergalactic dust for the expected gravitational wave from the era of inflation. This way, they are still free to go looking for those gravitational waves by other means. In my opinion they do not exist and these people had to have a cover story of why they did not see them. As far as I have been able to find out, there is no satisfactory theory of inflation. It is just an overblown hypothesis, derived from a grad student’s idea of what was going on in the very early universe. I bet you anything that the current studies of the proton will prove it wrong.
I also suspect that inflation is a patch.
There are surely plenty of other valid explanations for red shift that have not been adequately considered.
Perhaps the big bang theory is rooted in the desire to project human terms upon the universe. We are born with finite bodies; our lives begin and end. Maybe we just want to believe that the universe is also finite. An infinite universe has no center of gravity upon which to collapse, and so could be eternal.
This agrees so much more with known physics than something from nothing.
pkatt
February 10, 2015 6:17 pm
I’ve watched the big bang theory get patched and patched and patched. It should fall because it has been dis proven many different ways by folks who believed that what they should be seeing isn’t there. I have wondered when someone would realize that the universe is an evolution in progress and wondered when folks that would realize that black holes ARE THE EVENT HORIZON, spitting cosmic rays and radiation back out to be formed again infinitely. But no.. apparently the hubris of man dictates that we know the exact beginning of everything…even claiming that we know the exact age and make up of everything.. E=mc2 is ambiguous for we know the speed of light is not constant. We also now know that YES matter can move faster than light. We know that stars sing, why wouldn’t the universe be filled with white noise? And anyone who watches a red sunset caused by a volcano in another part of the world knows that it is not just distance that can red shift light, it is all the crap in between the stars as well. The true science will be able to connect the very small to the very large because nature is a repeating series of patterns but until the math gets corrected it will never be possible.
We also now know that YES matter can move faster than light.
I didn’t know that.
Could you tacky on a reference or two?
Oh, it is obvious to the most causual of observers:
Beliefs are created faster than the evidence that supports them.
Beliefs remain fixed in place despite a change in the evidence that contradicts them.
William Astley
February 10, 2015 6:25 pm
There are currently almost a hundred different anomalies and paradoxes: Astronomical observations vs Big bang theory. To keep the big bang theory on life support the laws of physics was changed allowing ‘inflation’, dark matter, and dark energy to be created. As observations improved the paradoxes and anomalies have increase not decreased and there is no solution in sight (the problem is the big bang did not happen, the universe is eternal rather than was created from nothing 13.7 billion years ago).
This paper for example lists 13 paradoxes and anomalies (peer reviewed paper for each paradox/anomaly) concerning the formation and evolution of galaxies. http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0623v2
This paper for example lists 10 paradoxes and anomalies concerning quasars. An example of an in your face quasar paradox is quasar spectrum does not exhibit time dilation (three peer reviewed papers confirm quasars do not exhibit time dilation, all possible explanations have been eliminated). If quasars were distant objects they would exhibit time dilation. There is no explanation as to why quasar spectrum does not exhibit time dilation and are no paper disputing the observational fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation.
Time dilation is a consequence of the fact that the universe is expanding. http://phys.org/news190027752.html http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4297
Pending problems in QSOs
Quasars (Quasi Stellar Objects, abbreviated as QSOs) are still nowadays, close to half a century after their discovery, objects which are not completely understood.
There are half dozen fundamental paradoxes concerning the ‘cosmic’ microwave background radiation.
The cosmic microwave background radiation (referred to as CMB) on small angles is too uniform (varies as 1 part in 100,000) vs 1 part of 5000 to 1 part of 7000 based on distribution of the matter in the universe (reality that there are galaxies) if there is no ‘inflation’.
On large angles are vast cold and hot spots and the hot and cold spots in the CMB mysteriously alignment of the large features in the CMB with the axis of our solar system and with our galaxy. http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4786
Large-Angle CMB Suppression and Polarization Predictions
The anomalous lack of large angle temperature correlations has been a surprising feature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) since first observed by COBE-DMR and subsequently confirmed and strengthened by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. This anomaly may point to the need for modifications of the standard model of cosmology or may indicate that our Universe is a rare statistical fluctuation within that model. Further observations of the temperature auto-correlation function will not elucidate the issue; sufficiently high precision statistical observations already exist.
“The mystery of the WMAP cold spot”
We find that, unlike its Northern counterpart, the Southern Galactic hemisphere of the CMB map is characterized by significant departure from Gaussianity of which the CS is not the only manifestation: we have located a ring, on which there are “cold” as “hot” spots with almost the same properties as the CS. Exploiting the similarity of the WCM and the ILC maps, and using the latter as a guide map, we have discovered that the shape of the CS is formed primarily by the components of the CMB signal represented by multipoles between 10 ≤ ℓ ≤ 20, with a corresponding angular scale about 5−10◦. This signal leads to modulation of the whole CMB sky, clearly seen at |b| > 30◦ in both the ILC and WCM maps, rather than a single localized feature. After subtraction of this modulation, the remaining part of the CMB signal appears to be consistent with statistical homogeneity and Gaussianity. We therefore infer that the mystery of the WMAP CS reflects directly the peculiarities of the low-multipole tail of the CMB signal, rather than a single local (isolated) defect or manifestation of a globally anisotropic cosmology.
There is a shortage of ionizing sources in the local universe (this problem would go away if the most distant observed quasar was at z=1 and something that happens to a quasars when they turn on causes the higher than z=1 observed quasars.) http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2933
THE PHOTON UNDERPRODUCTION CRISIS
We examine the statistics of the low-redshift Lyman-alpha forest from smoothed particle hydrodynamic simulations in light of recent improvements in the estimated evolution of the cosmic ultraviolet back-ground (UVB) and recent observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS). We find that the value of the metagalactic photoionization rate (HI) required by our simulations to match the observed properties of the low-redshift Lyman-alpha- forest is a factor of 5 larger than the value predicted by state-of-the art models for the evolution of this quantity. This mismatch in HI results in the mean ux decrement of the Lyman-alpha forest being underpredicted by at least a factor of 2 (a 10 sigma discrepancy with observations) and a column density distribution of Lyman- alpha forest absorbers systematically and significantly elevated compared to observations over nearly two decades in column density. We examine potential resolutions to this mismatch and that either conventional sources of ionizing photons (galaxies and quasars) must be significantly elevated relative to current observational estimates or our theoretical understanding of the low-redshift universe is in need of substantial revision.
There is a factor of 24 too much high redshift infrared radiation. This problem would go away if what causes some quasars to appear high redshift also causes some galaxies to appear too high redshift. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/4401002a.html
Astronomy: Trouble at first light
Nevertheless, several groups have claimed to have found the footprints of baby galaxies at near-infrared wavelengths, using data from NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)3 , 4, 5 and Spitzer Space Telescope6, and Japan’s Infrared Telescope in Space (IRTS)7. Their evidence comes in two forms. First, there is an excess signal above the combined emission of normal foreground galaxies that would require energetic events to have occurred in the early Universe. Second, the very uneven distribution of the radiation could arise from the spatial clustering properties of primordial stellar systems.
But rather than helping to decipher the epoch of cosmic first light, such observations have in fact created another puzzle. Simply stated, the dawn of galaxies seems to be too brilliant: the excess signal outshines the cumulative emission from all galaxies between Earth and the extremely distant first stars. If primordial sources are to account for all of this infrared radiation, current models of star formation in the young Universe look distinctly shaky. Too many massive stars ending their brief lives in a giant thermonuclear explosion would, for instance, eject large amounts of heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen into space, polluting the cosmos very early on and altering forever the composition of the raw material available for second-generation stars. But if the first-generation stars were to collapse to massive black holes instead, gas accretion onto such black holes would produce large amounts of X-rays. Both variants seem to be in conflict with current observations8, 9 , 10.
Julian Barbour: The End of TIME.. 2002 Best explanation yet!
Bill Illis
February 10, 2015 6:28 pm
You can theorize the Big Bang starting as a very big black hole. Hawking radiation is constantly at work for billions of years with nothing at all really happening as a result. But eventually, chance results in enough particles escaping at the same time through Hawking radiation that they drag extra particles along with them and a massive chain reaction pulls out all the particles in a few seconds/milliseconds.
The speed that the particles are pulled out has to be at or above the speed of light for this to happen (or whatever speed exceeds the gravity of the event horizon of a very big black hole). There is recent theory that the bigger the black hole, the more chance one could have Hawking radiation exceeding these limits.
We think of critical mass in terms of radioactive elements. However, if there was a time zero black hole, at that density, a sort of critical mass of everything may well have existed, in an astable state. In fact, the time that mass existed might have been surprisingly short. The astable mass innately wants to explode and does. Perhaps the whole thing is a sort of engine and it recycles. In that respect, it may be infinite, but within a given cycle is “the Universe” – e.g. the present Universe we organized structures of matter exist in, until some vast time elapses and entropy reaches a maximum. Then perhaps it all ends in a final grand black hole, rinse, repeat.
Bill Illis, William Astley, george e. smith, The Pompous Git, Steve Thayer, lsvalgaard
You can theorize the Big Bang starting as a very big black hole. Hawking radiation is constantly at work for billions of years with nothing at all really happening as a result. But eventually, chance results in enough particles escaping at the same time through Hawking radiation that they drag extra particles along with them and a massive chain reaction pulls out all the particles in a few seconds/milliseconds.
The speed that the particles are pulled out has to be at or above the speed of light for this to happen (or whatever speed exceeds the gravity of the event horizon of a very big black hole). There is recent theory that the bigger the black hole, the more chance one could have Hawking radiation exceeding these limits.
And thus, we return to the Steady State Universe.
IF you assume that matter (or energy, its equal) could escape from a black hole via Hawking’s radiation; and that the probablity of matter/energy escaping increases with the size of the black hole’s volume (or mass), then the re-entrant matter would return back to space anywhere, right?
The steady state universe “only” needs something on the order “one atom” re-appearing from the black hole in every cubic lightyear to maintain the ratio’s correct. It is just that, until Hawking Radiation was assumed, nobody could explain where the new matter came from . There never was any problem assuming the new matter would be appearing randomly at the required rate.
And no evidence against either.
“Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.”
— Philip J. Fry
Not enough Futurama quotes on the web these days…
Mark
This discussion enters the area where ordinary consciousness may not serve us in our quest for answers.
@ur momisugly NielsZoo February 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm
Brilliant use of the word “Climateer”. Not sure if it is your creation but it solves several problems at once.
1) Keeps us from stooping to their level and using harsh stereotypical labels like “denier”
2) Is akin to “puppeteer” as they are the puppets of a political agenda
3) Actually refers to the issue at hand unlike “skeptic” and “denier”
4) I would never be embarrassed to use it
Thanks!!!!
Do I have to be the first to mention the Great Green Arkleseizure?
Or:
FORD:
Yeah, well, Forget that. I mean do you know how the universe began for a kick off?
ARTHUR:
Well probably not
FORD:
Alright imagine this: you get a large round bath made of ebony.
ARTHUR:
Where from? Harrod’s was destroyed by the Vogons.
FORD:
Well it doesn’t matter –
ARTHUR:
So you keep saying!
FORD:
No, No listen. Just imagine that you’ve got this ebony bath, right? And it’s conical.
ARTHUR:
Conical? What kind of bath is –
FORD:
No, no, shh, shhh, it’s, it’s, it’s conical okay? So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that. And when it’s full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole… but the thing is…
ARTHUR:
Why?
FORD:
No, the clever thing is that you film it happening. You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it. But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.
ARTHUR:
Backwards?
FORD:
Yeah, neat you see. So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards, out of the plug hole and fill the bath… amazing.
ARTHUR:
And that’s how the universe began?
FORD:
No. But it’s a marvellous way to relax.
I thought about it and decided on “Cosmic Muffin” from the Deteriorata.
PS This is as opposed to calling them “scientists” which is hard to swallow sometimes.
Boys and girls, we are verging on cosmic phrenology.
The beer is always to the back and left.
MacCallan…
Mark
I love this subject!
When you make the assertion that everything came from “NOTHING” you really need to understand that nothing is “NOTHING”. It is not a vacuum, or nearly empty space, it is nothing. NOTHING AT ALL.
So we have everything and it came from Nothing at all.
We can propose a bouncing universe but the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
So now what?
Oh the mulitiverse. I would refer you all to the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem.
In any and every case case there is a beginning.
Fr Georges Henri Lemaitre, The Catholic priest and physicist who invented the Big Bang was right about that.
In the words of Atheist Leonard Susskind, the first cause that created our anthropic universe is
1) unknowable;
2) God; (yes he said this)
3) incredibly and absurdly improbably accidental;
4) It will be known someday, maybe.
Alternatively from Robert Spitzer SJ, a 1 hour lecture on the whole state of the art of science of creation.
Enjoy watching a polymath jesuit discuss contemporary cosmology.
BB is not everything from nothing. The BBT theory is everything was created out of an infinite energy unquantifiable beyond cause and affect something, the alternative is (steady state) everything always was and came from nothing, it just was. Cyclical theory is just a different version of steady state.
In this you have identified what philosophers call the cosmological argument, which supports everything coming from an infinite beyond cause and affect something, which some call God.
You say, “Cyclical theory is just a different version of steady state.”
Nope. It also had a beginning. The “cycle” must have a starting point. I refer you to Vilenkin. or Susskind for that matter.
Science and observation is on my side. Cyclic theory, has no evidence and, as such, is speculative.
Also you say” BB is not everything from nothing.”. Yes is it. With the BB, came time, space, energy matter etc. … everything. Before the BB there wasn’t even a before. There was nothing. And nothing is very difficult to apprehend. Saying that there was anything else before BB is….religion or belief.
Alexander Vilenkin tackles several models with his BVG theorem and concludes that it is most likely that the universe had a beginning. You can watch it below, and he specifically deals with the cyclic model, the emergent model, & static. See time stamp 34:19 for his conclusions.
I disagree Paul. All the evidence leading up to the singularity points to an infinite energy solution, existing beyond the laws of cause and affect, beyond the constraints of time. On the other hand steady state assumes no beginning, and everything inclusive (all things that can be quantified) has no cause.
As to cyclical theory, I have often heard it expressed as removing the need for a beginning. If some wish to eliminate that aspect, and define a beginning, it to likely demands infinite energy solutions.
David,
The beauty of the BVG Theorem (you should watch) is that it is independent of the dynamics.
Now consider the experimental results.
We have an ever expanding (at an accelerating rate) universe. That empirical observation kills the cyclic and static models. Interestingly, Monseigneur LeMaitre and Eddington considered the cyclic universe back in 1933, 30 years prior to Wilson and Penzias’ background radiation discovery.
The trouble with the static and cyclic models is that they contradict observation. Proponents of these 2 models (like Fred Hoyle) suffer the narrow mind dilemma. They detest the implications of the First Cause so much that they will defy the most fundamental elements of science to advance a belief. That is not science.
Further, adherents of the “no-first-cause” camp will speculate, without evidence, of all sorts prior-to-BB circumstance to patch over bad science and avoid observation. That is why I like Leonard Susskind’s explanation of the razer edge anthropic fine tuning. He is honest about it and sticking to the open mind which science requires.
Alexander Vilenkin, extrapolates the geodesics based on now as a boundary condition. Statics are unstable.
It is a difficult video, but you will be well served in listening.
Cheers
Don’t know if this was covered earlier, but the new theory does not question the big bang. It just says that the big bang did not start from a singularity. But the new theory Anthony links to does not question the big bang theory. This link does a better job of describing the theory, I think. http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning
Next thing you know, they’ll be calling Piltdown Mann a hoax.
The problem is when the science isn’t settled, or requires assumptions, but instead of arguing for what the exact state of discovery and how, people get defensive instead of reasoning. Sometimes the truth is obscure, but I tend to go with the side willing to argue the points. (The movie Expelled is worth viewing as is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw which someone in the Climate Debate needs to do a similar version, or something along “you can trust climatological models… http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3UXl0oMYPLs/SXZHIRt_oKI/AAAAAAAAAFw/j6kmhIdEQTI/s1600-h/ATHEIST+LOGIC.jpg).
Big Bang is old news: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ – it is simple and explains the data. Steady State was Dogma until a Jesuit’s theory started sounding right. And Plate Tectonics was proposed and ridiculed in 1905.
Theories, such as this, with modifications to the general theory of relativity are a dime a dozen.
Just peruse arXiv.org under “general relativity and cosmology”.
A good summary of the current challenges facing the Big Bang model:
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-paradoxes-that-threaten-to-tear-modern-cosmology-apart-d334a7fcfdb6
with a link to the original paper at arXiv for the cognoscenti.
Anthony,
The Big Bang theory was never settled science.
The Big Bang theory might be the orthodox explanation for the beginning of the universe at the moment but it was never “settled”.
That there might be a view that challenges the Big Bang explanation is not a problem.
It would be a worry if there weren’t other views.
Science is never settled, that’s why it’s science.
It is always open to challenge.
You are strong on this regarding climate science.
So what’s the problem if there is robust discussion in astrophysics ?
The anti-science sentiment running through this thread is scary. Where’s the popcorn?
neh… science is awesome! Science adapts, It is not anti science to argue about science. It is required.
Hey James-
You might consider washing y0ur hands before you dig into that popcorn, since it’s obvious to all us yokel anti- heaterists that you just dropped in to fling some poo and see what happens next.
Meh. More models. Other than that, not much new here.
I think we have a whole lot of things to learn, the origin of the universe and how our climate works not least among them.
I be a mere lay person, so please excuse my following question:
Is space considered to have been contained within the pre-BB singularity and burst forth with all the other stuff, or was space there all along as it is now, and contained the singularity?
The usual response to your query is that the questions have no meaning. A bit like saying “Here be dragons and do not venture there.”
The point of a singularity is that knowledge stops at the edge.
It’s the “Science of the Gaps”.
I like Carl Sagan’s take: “The universe is finite, but unbounded.”
Left to its own devices, nature always seems to “decay” in to a state of greater disorder. Yet somehow, after the big bang, nature “ordered” itself into universes, galaxies, stars, solar systems, etc.
It’s as if a massive star exploded, sending its matter, willy nilly into space at very great velocities, only to have this star-stuff “organize” itself into some sort of coherent mass or several or a great many coherent masses.
This seems highly improbable and totally at odds with what has been observed anywhere in the observable universe ( unless some PRE-EXISTING significant object- a black hole, a star, etc., with a large gravitational force pulls space stuff into some sort of “coherent” mass.)
Further, if E= mc^2 , at the time of the big bang, it is really tough to imagine an “E” so immensely huge, that the “m” produced is equal to the present day mass ( including dark matter- whatever that is) of the ENTIRE universe.
Maybe it was a massive star – a trillion , trilion, trillion trillion x 10^100 times the size of our sun that blew up. Or maybe a whole bunch of very large stars collided and blew up – that was the big bang.
But that would still not explain how an explosive event produces somewhat ” organized ” outcomes.
I am NOT a scientist , so perhaps someone out there in the ether (dark matter cloud) can tell me where I am going wrong!!!
Your pertinent observation has led to some believing that the likelihood of the Universe being 5 minutes old, is much greater than the likelihood that it is 13 billion years old. It’s a funny old Universe we live in 🙂
Its called evolution. Evolution always go the other way. Its like Merlin in King Arthur. While everyone else gets older Merlin get younger. You just have to believe it – like religion.
“Left to its own devices, nature always seems to “decay” in to a state of greater disorder. ”
Which is why it never should be left to its own devices.
It is arguable that, given sources of energy, the tendency of matter in the universe is toward increasing complexity, not the reverse. Hence we find complex organic molecules in asteroids.
/Mr Lynn
“Left to its own devices, nature always seems to “decay” in to a state of greater disorder.”
“Decay” is a human judgement.
Genesis 1
The Beginning
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said, “Let there be Max Photon,” and there was Max Photon.
4. God saw that Max Photon was good — really good! — and he separated Max Photon from the Darkness.
5. God called Max Photon “Day,” and the Darkness he called “Night.” And there was Happy Hour, and there was evening, and there was morning — the first Day.
6. And it’s pretty much been downhill ever since.
+5 7/8!
BTW, I told The Dude not to divide by zero, but He didn’t listen.
Beginning and End depend on time, and time is an invention of man.
If you accept that things cannot spring forth from nothing, then it must be the case that either God has always existed, or whatever came before the big bang has always existed.
There is a cogent argument that time is a perception, rather than “real” (whatever that means).
Interesting but difficult read by Brit physicist Julian Barbour, The End of Time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time_%28book%29
though the idea was much debated in philosophy circles around the turn of the 19thC.
I have nothing against big bang per se, as I have nothing against global warming per se. My objection in both cases has to do with inappropriate introduction of causing mechanisms. In the case of global warming it is a non-existent greenhouse warming. In the case of the Big Bang it is an imaginary “inflation.” Technically, the Big Bang paper had to be withdrawn because the mistook intergalactic dust for the expected gravitational wave from the era of inflation. This way, they are still free to go looking for those gravitational waves by other means. In my opinion they do not exist and these people had to have a cover story of why they did not see them. As far as I have been able to find out, there is no satisfactory theory of inflation. It is just an overblown hypothesis, derived from a grad student’s idea of what was going on in the very early universe. I bet you anything that the current studies of the proton will prove it wrong.
I also suspect that inflation is a patch.
There are surely plenty of other valid explanations for red shift that have not been adequately considered.
Perhaps the big bang theory is rooted in the desire to project human terms upon the universe. We are born with finite bodies; our lives begin and end. Maybe we just want to believe that the universe is also finite. An infinite universe has no center of gravity upon which to collapse, and so could be eternal.
This agrees so much more with known physics than something from nothing.
I’ve watched the big bang theory get patched and patched and patched. It should fall because it has been dis proven many different ways by folks who believed that what they should be seeing isn’t there. I have wondered when someone would realize that the universe is an evolution in progress and wondered when folks that would realize that black holes ARE THE EVENT HORIZON, spitting cosmic rays and radiation back out to be formed again infinitely. But no.. apparently the hubris of man dictates that we know the exact beginning of everything…even claiming that we know the exact age and make up of everything.. E=mc2 is ambiguous for we know the speed of light is not constant. We also now know that YES matter can move faster than light. We know that stars sing, why wouldn’t the universe be filled with white noise? And anyone who watches a red sunset caused by a volcano in another part of the world knows that it is not just distance that can red shift light, it is all the crap in between the stars as well. The true science will be able to connect the very small to the very large because nature is a repeating series of patterns but until the math gets corrected it will never be possible.
Haven’t you heard the latest? The new patch is: F=nd^3
A red sky at night is NOT due to red shift. It is, however, sailor’s delight…
Shepherds too 🙂 Though it’s many years since I had to go out in the early hours to pull a new lamb from its mother’s nether regions…
Oh, it is obvious to the most causual of observers:
Beliefs are created faster than the evidence that supports them.
Beliefs remain fixed in place despite a change in the evidence that contradicts them.
There are currently almost a hundred different anomalies and paradoxes: Astronomical observations vs Big bang theory. To keep the big bang theory on life support the laws of physics was changed allowing ‘inflation’, dark matter, and dark energy to be created. As observations improved the paradoxes and anomalies have increase not decreased and there is no solution in sight (the problem is the big bang did not happen, the universe is eternal rather than was created from nothing 13.7 billion years ago).
This paper for example lists 13 paradoxes and anomalies (peer reviewed paper for each paradox/anomaly) concerning the formation and evolution of galaxies.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0623v2
This paper for example lists 10 paradoxes and anomalies concerning quasars. An example of an in your face quasar paradox is quasar spectrum does not exhibit time dilation (three peer reviewed papers confirm quasars do not exhibit time dilation, all possible explanations have been eliminated). If quasars were distant objects they would exhibit time dilation. There is no explanation as to why quasar spectrum does not exhibit time dilation and are no paper disputing the observational fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation.
Time dilation is a consequence of the fact that the universe is expanding.
http://phys.org/news190027752.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4297
Pending problems in QSOs
Quasars (Quasi Stellar Objects, abbreviated as QSOs) are still nowadays, close to half a century after their discovery, objects which are not completely understood.
There are half dozen fundamental paradoxes concerning the ‘cosmic’ microwave background radiation.
The cosmic microwave background radiation (referred to as CMB) on small angles is too uniform (varies as 1 part in 100,000) vs 1 part of 5000 to 1 part of 7000 based on distribution of the matter in the universe (reality that there are galaxies) if there is no ‘inflation’.
On large angles are vast cold and hot spots and the hot and cold spots in the CMB mysteriously alignment of the large features in the CMB with the axis of our solar system and with our galaxy.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4786
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.1118
There is a shortage of ionizing sources in the local universe (this problem would go away if the most distant observed quasar was at z=1 and something that happens to a quasars when they turn on causes the higher than z=1 observed quasars.)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2933
There is a factor of 24 too much high redshift infrared radiation. This problem would go away if what causes some quasars to appear high redshift also causes some galaxies to appear too high redshift.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7087/full/4401002a.html
Oh, noes!!! Now we might never, ever find out Penny’s last name!!!!111
It’s Hofstadter.
Time has no necessary arrow.
Julian Barbour: The End of TIME.. 2002 Best explanation yet!
You can theorize the Big Bang starting as a very big black hole. Hawking radiation is constantly at work for billions of years with nothing at all really happening as a result. But eventually, chance results in enough particles escaping at the same time through Hawking radiation that they drag extra particles along with them and a massive chain reaction pulls out all the particles in a few seconds/milliseconds.
The speed that the particles are pulled out has to be at or above the speed of light for this to happen (or whatever speed exceeds the gravity of the event horizon of a very big black hole). There is recent theory that the bigger the black hole, the more chance one could have Hawking radiation exceeding these limits.
We think of critical mass in terms of radioactive elements. However, if there was a time zero black hole, at that density, a sort of critical mass of everything may well have existed, in an astable state. In fact, the time that mass existed might have been surprisingly short. The astable mass innately wants to explode and does. Perhaps the whole thing is a sort of engine and it recycles. In that respect, it may be infinite, but within a given cycle is “the Universe” – e.g. the present Universe we organized structures of matter exist in, until some vast time elapses and entropy reaches a maximum. Then perhaps it all ends in a final grand black hole, rinse, repeat.
Bill Illis, William Astley, george e. smith, The Pompous Git, Steve Thayer, lsvalgaard
And thus, we return to the Steady State Universe.
IF you assume that matter (or energy, its equal) could escape from a black hole via Hawking’s radiation; and that the probablity of matter/energy escaping increases with the size of the black hole’s volume (or mass), then the re-entrant matter would return back to space anywhere, right?
The steady state universe “only” needs something on the order “one atom” re-appearing from the black hole in every cubic lightyear to maintain the ratio’s correct. It is just that, until Hawking Radiation was assumed, nobody could explain where the new matter came from . There never was any problem assuming the new matter would be appearing randomly at the required rate.
And no evidence against either.
Would this allow for multiple “big bangs,” perhaps at different times?
Is our observable universe limited by our vantage point?
Nothing to prevent a local Big Bang in Hoyle & Gold’s Steady State Universe.