Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 8:44 AM
28 online now:
Aussie, Coragyps, GDR, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile, Tangle, vimesey (8 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,580 Year: 9,616/19,786 Month: 2,038/2,119 Week: 74/724 Day: 6/68 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1 of 273 (470821)
06-12-2008 8:52 PM


In another thread Straggler and I were discussing Inflation and the BBT. I raised the question that there was questions about the BBT. I was asked for the questions. It was suggested I start a thread that they might be discussed.

Straggler made the following comment to Buzsaw Here.

Straggler writes:

At best creationist theories are a hotchpotch of alternative explanations for the effects and phenomenon that proper scientific theories have already predicted, discovered and uncovered.

Which prompted some questions from me that Straggler answered.
Here and ask one of his own.

ICANT writes:

So when did the BBT predict inflation?


Straggler writes:

Never. To my knowldge.


ICANT writes:

Was it some 50 years or more after the theory?
When there was enough problems with the BBT that it should have been discarded.


Straggler writes:

Really? What problems are these?


I would like to present 7 question that are problems for the BBT that is found Here.
CAMBRIDGE COSMOLOGY HOT BIG BANG

Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology

The flatness problem
Why is the matter density of the universe so close to the unstable critical value between perpetual expansion and recollapse into a Big Crunch?

The horizon problem
Why does the universe look the same in all directions when it arises out of causally disconnected regions? This problem is most acute for the very smooth cosmic microwave background radiation.

The density fluctuation problem
The perturbations which gravitationally collapsed to form galaxies must have been primordial in origin; from whence did they arise?

The thermal state problem
Why should the universe begin in thermal equilibrium when there is no mechanism by which it can be maintained at very high temperatures.

The cosmological constant problem
Why is the cosmological constant 120 orders of magnitude smaller than naively expected from quantum gravity?

The singularity problem
The cosmological singularity at t=0 is an infinite energy density state, so general relativity predicts its own breakdown.

The timescale problem
Are independent measurements of the age of the Universe consistent using Hubble's constant and stellar lifetimes?

I would like to see these problems addressed with evidence for and against as I think it would be very educational.

Assertions will not be considered as evidence.

God Bless,

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Replaced "BBT" with "Big Bang Theory" in topic title.

Edited by Admin, : Fix title. I was originally going to close this thread because even the opening post was way, way off the topic of big bands, but then I realized that the title, "Re-Problems With The Big Band Theory", had a typo, which I've now fixed.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2008 10:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 11:24 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 06-13-2008 12:57 PM ICANT has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 273 (470828)
06-12-2008 10:00 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 273 (470830)
06-12-2008 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
06-12-2008 8:52 PM


You appear to be confusing questions to which you do not know the answer with problems.

{Crapola message "hidden". - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 06-12-2008 8:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:36 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 4 of 273 (470838)
06-12-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
06-12-2008 10:16 PM


Hmm.....perhaps you can actually offer answers then instead of making assumptions about what people do and do not know?

{As above. People, post content to move the debate forward, or don't post at all. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2008 10:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by IamJoseph, posted 06-13-2008 4:32 AM randman has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1839 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 5 of 273 (470870)
06-13-2008 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
06-12-2008 10:36 PM


The issue is not what people know, or what they don't know. The numerous issues debated are vested only in a post-BB scenario, while the real issue is well precedent of this BB point.

It is not the numerous problems one can point to, such as the horizon and density issues, because these issues cannot be resolved at this point of analysis; as soon as we nominate a reason for any of these issues, many others pop up to replace them - because they are vested in criteria which is not factored in the BB. We have one premise which is theologically based, and another which is anti-theology, while the real issue is not confronted. And what is this real issue?

The first problem is that most science views disregard or reject the universe as a finite realm, because it poses great difficulties in answering enigmatic issues - thus numerous qualifications are made which nullify the impact of a finite universe - eg. space was always prevalent, there was no expansion precisely following the BB instant, etc. Clearly, these are not theological or scientific issues, but are actually irresolvable paradoxes of themselves - it is not a tug-o-war between the theological and science sectors at all.

In fact, we have a real paradox concerning the universe origins, and it is best to admit and confront it. We should correctly and truthfully cease debating the universe origins, and limit the discussion to a post-BB scenario, because we cannot fathom something from nothing - the real issue confronting humanity, and not a resolvable one. Admittedly, this is very difficult to do, and is against man's nature; also, we should accept that some post BB issues cannot be resolved, namely those which are effected by the 'something from nothing' premise.

IOW, we can decipher how a car appeared - but we cannot fathom how the original, pre-quark, nano-structures of the car elements and the car maker originated. We will always end up in a brick wall scenario, converting this universal enigma to a battle between science and theology instead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:36 PM randman has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 6 of 273 (470906)
06-13-2008 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
06-12-2008 8:52 PM


Re-The Flatness Problem
The flatness problem
Why is the matter density of the universe so close to the unstable critical value between perpetual expansion and recollapse into a Big Crunch?

The problem is a simple big bang theory cannot explain how an Omega so close to critical density could arise.

ROBERT H. BRANDENBERGER Physics Department, Brown University
says Here:

Standard cosmology extrapolated all the way back to the big bang cannot
be taken as a self-consistent theory.

Thus, as the temperature decreases, | - 1| increases. In fact, in order to explain the present small value of C 1, the initial energy density had to be extremely close to critical density.

What is the origin of these fine tuned initial conditions? This is the "problem" of standard cosmology.

The Big Bang Theory has no answer to this question.

I found this on a superstring site.

The Einstein equation predicts that any deviation from flatness in an expanding Universe filled with matter or radiation only gets bigger as the Universe expands. So any tiny deviation from flatness at a much earlier time would have grown very large by now. If the deviation from flatness is very small now, it must have been immeasurably small at the start of the part of Big Bang we understand.
So why did the Big Bang start off with the deviations from flat spatial geometry being immeasurably small? This is called the flatness problem of Big Bang cosmology.

So wouldn't that mean the universe is much younger than many of the stars in the universe?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 06-12-2008 8:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 06-13-2008 12:24 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 11 by lyx2no, posted 06-13-2008 3:38 PM ICANT has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 7 of 273 (470919)
06-13-2008 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ICANT
06-13-2008 11:24 AM


Re: Re-The Flatness Problem
The problem is a simple big bang theory cannot explain how an Omega so close to critical density could arise

True - and is explained extremely well by inflation. Evidence in support of inflation is growing all the time, especially from WMAP.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 11:24 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 1:37 PM cavediver has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 8 of 273 (470922)
06-13-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
06-12-2008 8:52 PM


Hi ICANT
Some slightly selective quoting in the OP....

The point I was making in the previous therad is that the empirically evidenced basis on which the BB theory was formulated remains sound and free from problems.

BB Theory
The crux of the BB position being that the universe has evolved, and continues to evolve, from a prior very hot, very small, very dense state as evidenced by -

  • Observed ongoing expansion of the universe
  • Specific measured verification of CMB
  • Abundance of light elements as required as a direct logical consequence of BB theory.

    Additionally BB theory is completely consistent with General Realativity which itself has been empirically verified.

    Now if any of the above had turned out to be wrong BB would indeed have a very large problem. None of these however have been found to be wrong. In terms of direct refutations of the theoretical or empirical basis for BB - none exist

    Inflation
    The observed 'flatness' of the universe is an issue. It was not explained by BB theory as originally proposed. This is hardly the same as a refutation however as none of the evidence on which BB is fundamenatlly originally based said anything about the rate of expansion or it's constancy.
    Factors relating to this may have been assumed in the absence of evidence. But the fact that unevidenced assumptions made in addition to the fully evidenced conclusions of BB have turned out to be wrong hardly negates the fully evidenced conclusions themslves.
    Unless of course you have some sort of irrational desire to abandon the solid conclusions of BB theory for philosophical reasons.

    Inflation is an add-on to BB theory to better explain the additional evidence we now have. However it is an add-on that has no impact on the original basis of BB theory.

    We also have ever increasing evidence for the veracity of inflation.

    I hope that clears things up.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ICANT, posted 06-12-2008 8:52 PM ICANT has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 1:32 PM Straggler has not yet responded
     Message 220 by Buzsaw, posted 06-27-2008 7:27 PM Straggler has responded

  • ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6187
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007


    Message 9 of 273 (470929)
    06-13-2008 1:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Straggler
    06-13-2008 12:57 PM


    Re-Op
    Hi Straggler,

    Straggler writes:

    Some slightly selective quoting in the OP....

    Sorry about that, I would rather have moved my entire post but Moose said cut it down and start a thread. Feel free to bring anything over that you desire to as I will.

    Straggler writes:

    The observed 'flatness' of the universe is an issue. It was not explained by BB theory as originally proposed.

    The Big Bang Theory predicts that the Omega would be much greater today than it is. It does not predict an Omega at near critical density, Which it the observation. Message 6

    Straggler writes:

    We also have ever increasing evidence for the veracity of inflation.

    You have made this statement several times in the last couple of weeks. Now you have an opportunity to present your evidence.

    God Bless,


    "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Straggler, posted 06-13-2008 12:57 PM Straggler has not yet responded

      
    ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6187
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007


    Message 10 of 273 (470932)
    06-13-2008 1:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
    06-13-2008 12:24 PM


    Re-The Flatness Problem
    Hi cavediver,

    cavediver writes:

    True - and is explained extremely well by inflation. Evidence in support of inflation is growing all the time, especially from WMAP.

    Which hypothesis of Inflation are you refering to. I don't want to fall into the trap of me talking about one version and you about a totaly different version.

    God Bless,


    "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by cavediver, posted 06-13-2008 12:24 PM cavediver has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 22 by cavediver, posted 06-14-2008 5:38 PM ICANT has not yet responded

      
    lyx2no
    Member (Idle past 2887 days)
    Posts: 1277
    From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
    Joined: 02-28-2008


    Message 11 of 273 (470952)
    06-13-2008 3:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by ICANT
    06-13-2008 11:24 AM


    from A to B
    A:
    quote:
    The Einstein equation predicts that any deviation from flatness in an expanding Universe filled with matter or radiation only gets bigger as the Universe expands. So any tiny deviation from flatness at a much earlier time would have grown very large by now. If the deviation from flatness is very small now, it must have been immeasurably small at the start of the part of Big Bang we understand.
    So why did the Big Bang start off with the deviations from flat spatial geometry being immeasurably small? This is called the flatness problem of Big Bang cosmology.

    B:

    So wouldn't that mean the universe is much younger than many of the stars in the universe?

    Could you please explain to me how you got from A to B?


    Kindly

    ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

    There is a spider by the water pipe.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 11:24 AM ICANT has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 5:26 PM lyx2no has responded

    ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6187
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007


    Message 12 of 273 (470973)
    06-13-2008 5:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by lyx2no
    06-13-2008 3:38 PM


    Re: from A to B
    lyx2n0 writes:

    Could you please explain to me how you got from A to B?

    I did put that in the form of a question? If you will notice the question mark at the end of the sentence.

    With the predictions of the standard BBT the universe would only be about 8 billion years old. But we have stars older than that.

    If I remember correctly the age of the universe is determined by the extrapolation back to the Big Bang using the Hubble expansion rate. This expansion rate is dependent on the current density of the universe as well as composition.

    According to the standard BBT the universe would be much younger than 13.7 billion years old.

    Hubble's initial value was 500 km/s/Mpc the latest estimates are 70.1km/s/Mpc.

    Feel free to correct any of this as I am just digging trying to learn.

    God Bless,


    "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by lyx2no, posted 06-13-2008 3:38 PM lyx2no has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by lyx2no, posted 06-13-2008 8:42 PM ICANT has responded

      
    lyx2no
    Member (Idle past 2887 days)
    Posts: 1277
    From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
    Joined: 02-28-2008


    Message 13 of 273 (470992)
    06-13-2008 8:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
    06-13-2008 5:26 PM


    Re: from A to B
    Yeah thanks, I did see the question mark. That's why I thought I should have been using longer screws on the book shelves. Notice I qualified that with "I thought".

    Anyway, the BBT does not make any predictions as to the age of the Universe in its own right. It predicts that there should be ways to measure the age of the Universe. But because there was no know method for accurately measuring the distances to the galaxies in the 1920s and 30s the initial values for the Hubble constant were set by the extremes of credulity. 500 km/Mpc on the high end and 50 km/Mpc on the low end. These gave ages of the Universe from 2 billion to 20 billion years, respectively. It was as simple as that: No one could believe the Universe was outside this age range. As better tools and skills came alone better estimates followed.

    The long age of the Universe was due to the aging of globular star clusters being aged at 12 - 20 billion years. This was later estimated to be nearer 12 - 16 billion years. Still later, more accurate distance measurements reduced this further to 10 -13.5 billion.

    I was also amused by 18 billion year old stars in a 12 billion year old Universe. But then again, I was easily amused not yet a teenager.


    Kindly

    ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

    There is a spider by the water pipe.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 5:26 PM ICANT has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 9:32 PM lyx2no has responded

    ICANT
    Member
    Posts: 6187
    From: SSC
    Joined: 03-12-2007


    Message 14 of 273 (470997)
    06-13-2008 9:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by lyx2no
    06-13-2008 8:42 PM


    Re: Age of Universe
    lux2no writes:

    Anyway, the BBT does not make any predictions as to the age of the Universe in its own right.

    If I understood what Einstein had said the density of the universe should have gotten to be less and that would make the universe younger. I know cavediver already set me straight that there was a problem but Inflation cured the problem.

    I will deal with Inflation later. Right now I wanted to see these problems that exist with the BBT discussed. But seems nobody wants to talk about them. I think there would be a wealth of information that could be brought forth that would enlighten many and especially me.

    God Bless,


    "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by lyx2no, posted 06-13-2008 8:42 PM lyx2no has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by lyx2no, posted 06-14-2008 12:16 AM ICANT has responded

      
    lyx2no
    Member (Idle past 2887 days)
    Posts: 1277
    From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
    Joined: 02-28-2008


    Message 15 of 273 (471009)
    06-14-2008 12:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by ICANT
    06-13-2008 9:32 PM


    Update Your Model
    The density problem has a tendency to make a universe either immediately collapse or so tenuous that nothing ever forms. For all intents and purposes initial conditions that give us a 13.7 billion year old universe and an eight billion year old universe are identical. We certainly couldn't predict such a minor difference in out come.

    You do realize that model are adapted as new information comes to light. As we get into trouble shooting our faulty television our hypothesis of the cause of failure evolves. You’re still trying to get up a conversation about what’s wrong with the TV before you’ve even hit it in the side. We've all got the back off and are doing nerd stuff with the horizontal convergence circuit.


    Kindly

    ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

    There is a spider by the water pipe.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 9:32 PM ICANT has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2008 1:08 AM lyx2no has responded

    1
    23456
    ...
    19NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019