Where did the Big Bang come from.

quote:

---

If the mass density would decrease in your box, then some mass would have to leave it and increase the mass density elsewhere. It is therefore not possible that the mass density decreases everywhere in space.

---

What part about expanding don't you understand? If this box increases in volume, then the average density will decrease. The density average has gotten smaller to compensate for the increase in volume. Again, nothing complicated here.

Ok, let's take a look at the sample page at http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm to see what I mean.From the site...Cosmology, by definition, claims to be the science of everythingFrom the very first sentence on the page, we learn that the author doesn't even know what cosmology is. Cosmology is the study of the large scale structure and evolution of the universe. As is, it doesn't deal with QM or make any claims about metaphysics. How many times have you read creationist claims that evolution is the study of how rocks turned into life? This is the same type of misrepresentation here.Now onto what the author says about space as a so called abstraction:

quote:

---

The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because space can only be defined by the distance between two objects, which is however by definition always given by a straight line.

---

No, that is a line by definition in Euclidean geometry. Just because you have one set of axioms that hold true for one kind of geometry does not mean all other geometries are logically impossible. This displays that the author also does not have a grasp on basic logic either.

quote:

---

Mathematicians frequently try to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it.

---

The surface analogy is only that - an analogy. That surfaces only exist within an "actual" volume (valid or not) is irrelevant. The analogy is used to demonstrate the relationship between a closed universe and objects contained within. An imaginary object on the surface moving along the X,Y axis will never reach an edge to the surface, and that is the whole point of this analogy. A 3D object will never run to an edge of the X,Y,Z volume for the same reason. And no hole can be drilled through the surface, because that would require an extra dimension, which does not exist for the surface objects. In cosmology, it is possible that our universe is closed and finite without being embedded in any larger space.

quote:

---

Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'.

---

That's just like saying it makes no sense to call space Euclidean. Can the space and distances between points within be described accurately be Euclidean geometry? If not, then it must be described by some other geometry. And no, space is not some "outer form" or thing with any independent existence of the gravitational field. General Relativity makes that fairly clear. How can you attack what GR says about space and time, if you don't know what it says in the first place?

quote:

---

Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.
The concept of a distorted space around massive physical objects for instance, as promoted by General Relativity, is therefore also inconsistent and should be replaced by appropriate physical theories describing the trajectories of particles and/or light near these objects.

---

Yeah yeah, I know. Cosmology is nonsense because it doesn't fit your intution.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 11-16-2003][This message has been edited by Beercules, 11-16-2003]

quote:

---

I do think that cosmologists have looked at a number of different explanations for the redshift. However, it is my understanding that the expansion fits the available data best.

---

One should note that the Hubble 'Law' does actually not involve the recession speed (which can not be observed directly) but the redshift. The latter is only interpreted as a recession, yet there is no evidence whatsoever that this assumption is justified.
As far as I am aware, when Hubble discovered the redshift of galaxies, he associated this immediately with a recession velocity and did not consider any other options. Since then, this view has been kept without any serious attempts for alternative explanations (anyway not the explanation I have suggested, i.e. a redshift due to propagation of the electromagnetic fields in the intergalactic electric microfield (caused by the plasma there and in a way being the counter-part of the Faraday-rotation in a magnetic field)).But anyway, a logically flawed theory (a general expansion of the universe) can not claim to provide a 'best-fit' to observations.[This message has been edited by Thomas2, 11-17-2003]

quote:

---

What part about expanding don't you understand? If this box increases in volume, then the average density will decrease. The density average has gotten smaller to compensate for the increase in volume. Again, nothing complicated here.

---

How should a unit volume increase its volume? This is a logical contradiction in terms. The marking on the edge of the expanded box would in any case still say '1m' and consequently the mass density stay unchanged if there is no mass outflow (in contradiction to your assumption that the mass density should decrease).
You can not expect to build a consistent theory if you can't even manage to stick to your initial definitions.
Even if you assume that everyday objects are expanding as well (which by the way is denied by cosmologists), you would have to assume for instance that atoms become larger, which should increase the emission frequencies of light and therewith lead to a blue shift (which should then cancel with the redshift).

quote:

---

The surface analogy is only that - an analogy. That surfaces only exist within an "actual" volume (valid or not) is irrelevant. The analogy is used to demonstrate the relationship between a closed universe and objects contained within. An imaginary object on the surface moving along the X,Y axis will never reach an edge to the surface, and that is the whole point of this analogy. A 3D object will never run to an edge of the X,Y,Z volume for the same reason. And no hole can be drilled through the surface, because that would require an extra dimension, which does not exist for the surface objects. In cosmology, it is possible that our universe is closed and finite without being embedded in any larger space.

---

As mentioned before, your mathematical arguments have nothing to do with reality: surfaces are only mathematical abstractions and have no physical reality (in fact you could say that surfaces don't exist at all) and in the same sense a curved space does not exist either (apart from in the mind of mathematicians).
Show me two objects in real space that I can not connect through a straight line (one way or another) and I would have to admit that I am wrong. I can not see the latter happen however because fact is that the Euclidean metric always yields the shortest distance between two objects in the universe, and there is no reason whatsoever (not a physical one anyway) why the usual 'minimum principle' of mathematical physics should not hold here (if you are interested, I have discussed the 'metrics' aspect in some detail under http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/discussions/cosmology1.htm[This message has been edited by Thomas2, 11-17-2003]

quote:

---

How should a unit volume increase its volume? This is a logical contradiction in terms.

---

Err, how so? There is is nothing logically inconsistent about a region of space increasing in volume (ie. one volume changing into a larger volume) regardless of your word games. The prediction of expanding space comes directly from the equations of GR.

quote:

---

The marking on the edge of the expanded box would in any case still say '1m' and consequently the mass density stay unchanged if there is no mass outflow (in contradiction to your assumption that the mass density should decrease).

---

The marking is irrelevant. An expanded region of space will have a larger volume for the mass to be distributed throughout, and so when you factor in the average density you're going to get a lower number than with a small region of equal mass. This is very basic math and if you can't even understand this simple problem then you're wasting your time with physics. Seriously, I haven't even met a creationist this challenged.

quote:

---

You can not expect to build a consistent theory if you can't even manage to stick to your initial definitions.
Even if you assume that everyday objects are expanding as well (which by the way is denied by cosmologists), you would have to assume for instance that atoms become larger, which should increase the emission frequencies of light and therewith lead to a blue shift (which should then cancel with the redshift).

---

And again, you can't expect to criticize a theory if you have never taken the time to learn it. No one who understands the theory expects everyday objects to expand, because they know gravitationally bound regions will not expand. Expansion is a phenomena with flat space only. These are predictions of the theory, and only those who never learned GR are mystified by the notion that matter doesn't expand. The difference is, most of these people don't pretend they know physics and start a website arguing against the mainstream.

quote:

---

As mentioned before, your mathematical arguments have nothing to do with reality:

---

And as before, this is just your own assertion.

quote:

---

surfaces are only mathematical abstractions and have no physical reality (in fact you could say that surfaces don't exist at all) and in the same sense a curved space does not exist either (apart from in the mind of mathematicians).

---

Now I must ask, what part of "it's only an analogy" do you not understand?

quote:

---

Show me two objects in real space that I can not connect through a straight line (one way or another) and I would have to admit that I am wrong.

---

That's quite irrelevant as well. We experience Euclidean space only, but that hardly means that space on large scales must necessarily be so as well. It is consistent to say that spacetime only appears flat from our point of view while actually being Non Euclidean, and we do have the experimental evidence to support the notion of curved spacetime. Now I would use an analogy to demonstrate this point, but it seems you don't grasp the point of analogies well and it would just over your head.

quote:

---

I have discussed the 'metrics' aspect in some detail under http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/discussions/cosmology1.htm

---

Oh goody, more insight into geometry and physics from someone who has studied neither.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 11-17-2003]

quote:

---

Err, how so? There is is nothing logically inconsistent about a region of space increasing in volume (ie. one volume changing into a larger volume) regardless of your word games.

---

It is inconsistent if you assume a general expansion, because your measuring unit would expand as well and the expansion would by definition not be observable.

quote:

---

No one who understands the theory expects everyday objects to expand, because they know gravitationally bound regions will not expand.

---

Now you are contradicting yourself. Above you insisted that the box would expand. So what now ? (if it does not expand then you would not have mass conservation if the mass density decreases).

quote:

---

The surface analogy is only that - an analogy

---

As I said, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction based on the appearance of physical objects, and a curved space is a further theoretical generalization of this abstraction. It is therefore illogical to claim that the former is the analogon of the latter, because without the physical object you would never have been able to define a curved space mathematically in the first place.

quote:

---

And again, you can't expect to criticize a theory if you have never taken the time to learn it.

---

You are making an unfounded assertion here. Believe me, I have done it all when I was a student, but I have convinced myself subsequently that the theory is conceptually flawed.
Maybe you should take some time out as well and start thinking rather than quoting.[This message has been edited by Thomas2, 11-17-2003][This message has been edited by Thomas2, 11-17-2003]

Thomas2
you post'One should note that the Hubble 'Law' does actually not involve the recession speed (which can not be observed directly) but the redshift. The latter is only interpreted as a recession, yet there is no evidence whatsoever that this assumption is justified."Two questions then. How do you interpret the redshift data? How do you explain the increase in redshift as galaxies get farther away?

quote:

---

It is inconsistent if you assume a general expansion, because your measuring unit would expand as well and the expansion would by definition not be observable.

---

What in the world does observation have to do with the logic of an expanding volume? Yeesh.

quote:

---

Now you are contradicting yourself. Above you insisted that the box would expand. So what now ? (if it does not expand then you would not have mass conservation if the mass density decreases).

---

The box is your analogy, and I was explaining why the mass density would decrease if it expands. God, you're slow.

quote:

---

As I said, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction based on the appearance of physical objects, and a curved space is a further theoretical generalization of this abstraction. It is therefore illogical to claim that the former is the analogon of the latter, because without the physical object you would never have been able to define a curved space mathematically in the first place.

---

Do you even know what logic is? An analogy is just used to convey an idea, and I already explained how the surface and 2D imaginary objects on it are used to relate to the idea of a curved volume and the relationship to 3D objects. Nothing illogical here. Obviously, this is a little too tricky for you. Better bring your special hat next time.

quote:

---

You are making an unfounded assertion here.

---

No, I've actually been to your silly website. From that, it is quite clear that you haven't studied physics in the slighest. You're just making strawman attacks there and on this board, because you don't know what you're talking about. You wouldn't happen to be related to Kent Hovind by any chance, would you?

quote:

---

Believe me, I have done it all when I was a student, but I have convinced myself subsequently that the theory is conceptually flawed.

---

Yes, and Hovind learned about evolution when he did his PHD work.

quote:

---

Maybe you should take some time out as well and start thinking rather than quoting.

---

Who's quoting?[This message has been edited by Beercules, 11-17-2003]

The very first (earliest) thing we can describe with quantum chromodynamics, assuming a hot big bang model for the beginning of the universe, is a "soup" of gluons, photons, and other fundamental particles, back to a time of about 10^-43 seconds, all of them in thermal equilibrium. To go farther back than that we will need a quantum theory of gravity. But even when we do have a quantum theory of gravity there may be a limit to how far back in time we can calculate, so the question then is what was before that farthest back (or closest to the beginning) that we will eventually be able to calculate? The short answer is that it depends on your philosophy about life in general, and more specifically whether or not you believe in the existence of an "intelligent designer", or god.On the "non-god" side of the answer, or my opinion you will find a brief discussion of a few points. When a theory that unifies the four physical forces is successfully developed, it will be able to tell us something about the universe prior to about 10^ -43 seconds, the so-called Planck Time. Until that theory is developed we know nothing about events before then. There have been many models for the universe, but the three most common ones are steady-state, oscillating, and big-bang. Most cosmologists and astrophysicists are currently leaning toward the big-bang models because evidence in its support has been accumulating recently, starting with the confirmation of Einstein's general theory of relativity during the first half of this century and concluding recently with the 1992 results from the COBE satellite. The big- bang models do present some intriguing questions, just like your question, about what could cause such an occurrence! There currently are no testable theories to account for the presence of the universe, but there is much speculation. Many of the ideas presented are predicated on the premise that there is not a god. To account for the fact that our universe appears to be extremely finely tuned, it is supposed that there have been a large number (in some suppositions an infinite number) of universes, or that we are in one of a large number (again, maybe infinite number) of presently- existing parallel universes, so the fact that we are here to think about these things is simply a chance occurrence of finely-tuned-looking circumstances in our particular universe. This is the anthropic principle.On the "god" side of the answer, you already know, I am sure, that astrophysicists have been talking privately, and sometimes in publications and books, about the need for an intelligent designer to have provided not only the energy and the starting conditions for the big bang, but also to have made the physical laws that govern our universe just right so that we can now, roughly 15 billion years later, live on a nice comfortable planet. Everything we now know about, the hydrogen, helium, all the other elements, the galaxies, stars, planets, and everything else, has been a result of the workings of the physical laws that were put into place by the intelligent designer, if you're on this side of the answer. The intelligent designer may have nudged things along in various directions at crucial points in the development of the universe, our Milky Way galaxy, our star, and our planet. The latest theories that are being developed to describe the unification of the four fundamental forces are attempting to discover a description of the physical laws that will be self consistent, and, according to the "god" side of the answer, this theory will describe the laws that were put into place by the intelligent designer. And, on this side of the answer, the intelligent designer certainly had a part in all the various episodes of the formation of life. (By the way, according to the site I mentioned above, science and creationism do make perfectly good sense together, but it depends on a viewpoint called "old-universe creationism". The brand of creationism you are probably familiar with is "young-universe creationism", which certainly does not make sense scientifically.) On this "god" side of the answer there are also currently no testable theories to account for the presence of the universe prior to the Planck time. The ideas put forth are based on what can be found in the holy books, particularly the Bible, and are given credence by the fact that what we do know from theories and data is consistent with what the Bible says.So which side do we go to? It seems to depend on the baggage we are already carrying and that we bring along to the question! In other words, if we already believe in a god, we are more likely to lean toward the "god" side of the answer, and if we believe that there is no god, we naturally lean toward the "non-god" side! Is there a "correct" side to the answer? That, I'm afraid, takes us into metaphysics too much to be properly discussable here! To realize this, you have to be aware that the big crunch would be very different than the big bang. A variety of arguments, some based on direct observation (e.g. observations of the 3 Kelvin microwave backround by the COBE satellite), have shown that the the universe was extremely homogeneous at its beginning. Density and pressure conditions were smooth and nearly uniform. On the other hand, a recollapsing universe would be extremely non uniform since matter would have had the time to aggregate in clumps (stars, galaxies, black holes etc.)So, since the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are different, their entropies can be different. Furthermore, since the Big Crunch would be full of disordered perturbations in density, its entropy would be much higher than that of the Big Bang.

quote:

---

God, you're slow

---

As you should be aware, speed is always relative.

First of all, any explanation (or even no explanation at all) is better than the suggested expansion of the universe, simply because the latter is logically impossible (as indicated by me in this thread).The only possible mechanism I can see is that the redshift is caused by the integrated effect of the small scale electric field due to the charged particles in intergalactic space. The point is that the redshift occurs only if the electric field is quasi-static and quasi-homogeneous with regard to the frequency and wavelength of light, which pretty much limits the effect to intergalactic space because in other parts of the universe the plasma is either too dense or the light path too short to produce a significant effect. This is why the effect has not been detected in other contexts so far (although the well known Faraday rotation of light in a magnetic field could be considered as a counterpart of this effect).
The good point is that this theory can actually be tested (unlike the expansion which could only be verified after millions of years): according to the above mentioned conditions, the redshift should disappear if the wavelength of light gets larger than the average distance of charged particles in intergalactic space. This should be somewhere in the radio region (probably 1m wavelength or so). Unfortunately redshifts are very difficult to measure for such long wavelengths because the intensity of galaxies is so small here, but it may also be possible to demonstrate the effect generally in the laboratory by observing the propagation of light through a sufficiently strong electric field.I have actually suggested a corresponding research proposal in the connection with numerous job applications in the last couple of years, but unfortunately without any reaction so far (most Big-Bang cosmologists don't seem to like the idea that they may be finally disproved).

Thomas2 The redshift occurs in the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.Visible light occupies wavelengths from 700 to 400 nm.Of course it would disappear as it moved into infrared on its way to radio wavelengths.

quote:

---

The redshift occurs in the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.Visible light occupies wavelengths from 700 to 400 nm.Of course it would disappear as it moved into infrared on its way to radio wavelengths.

---

No, according to conventional theory the redshift factor is independent of wavelength., i.e. all spectral lines should be redshifted by the same relative amount regardless of wavelength. I am actually already aware of 1 or 2 measurements of redshifts in the radio region and these are identical (to within the the error bars) with the optical redshift, but the wavelength of these lines was presumably not long enough.

"my" universe is an expanding membrane of a bubble made up of spacetime. It is surrounding and surrounded by "the nothing" with black holes of "nothingness" permeating the membrane and leading to either the middle, the edge or between two points if it has broken free. Kinda like tendrils in those plasma ball lights rippling back thru time from the edge except it feeds back on to itself like a donut whose surface rolls around.It appears flat cos of the curvature of the bubble skin but if you look towards the middle you won't see anything but the other side as it will bend light around the entire surface. If you look to the edge you won't see anything cos it's expanding at the speed of light or there abouts so you will never see the massive exchange of energy taking place. The frontier is a place where all physical laws breakdown and where " the nothing" is converted into energy.It started with a bang and has been expanding into "the nothing" while also being sucked outwards by "the nothing" since t=0. Before the universe existed there was only "the nothing" but if you've got one thing you actually have two. The thing you have and nothing. Take the thing away and you still have nothing. Take the nothing away and it ceases to be relative to anything so it becomes nothing. So in the beginning there was a singular nothing and as such was only relative to itself.So "Nothing is real" and everything else is sustained by it...accept nothing as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own realityand try to do it on a regular basis or you'll just end up being a database of trivia and irrelevence

Sigh, learn some logic.