Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 11:48 AM
39 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, dwise1, edge, FLRW, JonF, ooh-child, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Post Volume:
 Total: 850,154 Year: 5,191/19,786 Month: 1,313/873 Week: 209/460 Day: 25/29 Hour: 3/4

EvC Forum Science Forums Big Bang and Cosmology

# Apparent contradiction in the Big Bang Theory

Author Topic:   Apparent contradiction in the Big Bang Theory
CrackerJack
Inactive Member

 Message 1 of 19 (92905) 03-17-2004 10:28 AM

Forgive me if this subject has already been covered, but in checking various threads I didn't see anything on it. In the past two months, there have been a few separate reports of finding galaxies which were formed very shortly after the big bang. From my understanding of the big bang theory, it started out at one central point and the universe has been expanding ever since. Like a balloon. So if we see an object that is 13.2 billion light years away, and the universe is 13.7 billion years old (these are the numbers I saw in one of the recent news reports), then that would mean that we are seeing light as it left that object 500 million years after the big bang and at a position less than 500 million years from the center of the universe where the big bang occurred. What I find to be a real contradiction is that there have been several such reports of galaxies having similar ages, but they are no where near each other. If object A is 13.2 billion light years away, and object B is 13 billion light years away, the distance between object A and object B is less than 1.2 billion light years (based on the age of the universe being 13.7 billion years). Simple high school trigonometry tells you that the angle of separation between these two objects would be a maximum of something like 5.2 degrees (please correct me if I made a mistake in my calculation). There is way more than this amount of separation between these objects, so something isn't right. Please tell me how it is that we can observe objects on opposite sides of the universe which are both looking back to near the beginning of the universe. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. The universe may be shaped like a balloon, but that is not the shape it appears to us. It would appear to use to be somewhat cone shaped due to the fact that we are not viewing all objects in the position they are now, but in various positions back in time. I only have limited knowledge of astronomy (one high school and one college astronomy class), but based on everything I was taught from the textbooks at the time, there is absolutely no way the big bang theory can be correct if the distances and ages of the current objects being discovered are correct. What gives?
 Replies to this message: Message 2 by JonF, posted 03-17-2004 2:49 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 03-17-2004 3:36 PM CrackerJack has responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 4562
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 4.5

 Message 2 of 19 (92936) 03-17-2004 2:49 PM Reply to: Message 1 by CrackerJack03-17-2004 10:28 AM

The universe is not expanding into space, which is what you implicitly assumed. Instead, space itself is expanding. Thus objects which are "spacelike seaparated" (which means they are too far apart for a light beam to have traveled form one to the other in the age of the universe) were separated by much less space near the time of the Big Bang.
 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by CrackerJack, posted 03-17-2004 10:28 AM CrackerJack has not yet responded

Loudmouth
Inactive Member

 Message 3 of 19 (92942) 03-17-2004 3:36 PM Reply to: Message 1 by CrackerJack03-17-2004 10:28 AM

CrackerJack,

I am not quite sure about your argument, but maybe we can clear up a few points.

1. Not all galaxies formed at the same time. Galaxies are no more than a gathering of mass due to gravitational forces. Galaxies have stars because within the larger gathering, there are smaller gatherings which become compressed enough, through gravity, to start fusion reactions. Nebulae are just loose affiliations of gas that do not have spin. Within these nebulae we can see star formation. It is possible that given enough time that these nebulae could compress enough to form galaxies.

2. All the galaxies/mass are not concentrated on the edges of space. Using the balloon example, the galaxies are not all on the surface of the expanding balloon.

quote:
If object A is 13.2 billion light years away, and object B is 13 billion light years away, the distance between object A and object B is less than 1.2 billion light years (based on the age of the universe being 13.7 billion years). Simple high school trigonometry tells you that the angle of separation between these two objects would be a maximum of something like 5.2 degrees (please correct me if I made a mistake in my calculation).

What if those galaxies were colinear. That is, they are in a straight line with earth. Then they would be separated by 0 degrees and still consistent with the Big Bang. I don't see where measuring the distance between these two objects in degrees has any bearing on their relative age. Distance is the best guage, being that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum (ignoring gravitation effects).

quote:
The universe may be shaped like a balloon, but that is not the shape it appears to us. It would appear to use to be somewhat cone shaped due to the fact that we are not viewing all objects in the position they are now, but in various positions back in time.

As I understand it, the edge of the universe is shaped like a balloon. We are like a fish swimming in a balloon whose edges are moving out faster than we could ever swim. In a way, the balloon is infinite because we can never hit or experience the edge, but the horizon nevertheless exists. The inner part of the balloon, with the water, defines our realm of experience. Moving back to the universe, galaxies and celestial bodies fill the inner part of the balloon, not just the outer surface.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by CrackerJack, posted 03-17-2004 10:28 AM CrackerJack has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 4 by Eggmann, posted 03-17-2004 3:48 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded Message 11 by CrackerJack, posted 03-17-2004 6:37 PM Loudmouth has responded Message 14 by Raymon, posted 03-18-2004 4:20 PM Loudmouth has responded

Eggmann
Inactive Member

 Message 4 of 19 (92945) 03-17-2004 3:48 PM Reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth03-17-2004 3:36 PM

big bang is wrong
The string of very distant galaxies [1] and the latest Hubble Ultra Deep Field discoveries [2] are just another confirmations of Eugene Savov's theory of interaction [3]. This emeging theory reshapes our understanding of the universe and buries the big bang.

1. http://msowww.anu.edu.au/~pfrancis/www/string/
2. http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
3. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-17-2004]

 This message is a reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 03-17-2004 3:36 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 03-17-2004 3:56 PM Eggmann has not yet responded Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 03-17-2004 3:56 PM Eggmann has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003

 Message 5 of 19 (92946) 03-17-2004 3:56 PM Reply to: Message 4 by Eggmann03-17-2004 3:48 PM

This is a discussion board. Please summarize the information contained in your links. And then please explain how they invalidate the Big Bang.
 This message is a reply to: Message 4 by Eggmann, posted 03-17-2004 3:48 PM Eggmann has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 7 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-17-2004 4:15 PM Chiroptera has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003

 Message 6 of 19 (92947) 03-17-2004 3:56 PM Reply to: Message 4 by Eggmann03-17-2004 3:48 PM

Whoops! Finally I am guilty of a double post!

[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-17-2004]

 This message is a reply to: Message 4 by Eggmann, posted 03-17-2004 3:48 PM Eggmann has not yet responded

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 3724 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003

 Message 7 of 19 (92953) 03-17-2004 4:15 PM Reply to: Message 5 by Chiroptera03-17-2004 3:56 PM

 Chiroptera writes:This is a discussion board. Please summarize the information contained in your links. And then please explain how they invalidate the Big Bang.

I bet you didnt even bother to take a look at the link. This is serious stuff for the big bang fans. These are no ordinary links they are from credible sources which is what you evos always ask for. If they dig further into this we could have the makings of a new theory of the origins of the universe. I hope nobody here starts saying that this is not science because it can be anymore clear that the big bang theory is in the big trouble.

 This message is a reply to: Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 03-17-2004 3:56 PM Chiroptera has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 8 by Trixie, posted 03-17-2004 4:31 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 03-17-2004 4:31 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded Message 10 by Sylas, posted 03-17-2004 6:27 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

Trixie
Member (Idle past 1815 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004

 Message 8 of 19 (92957) 03-17-2004 4:31 PM Reply to: Message 7 by Itachi Uchiha03-17-2004 4:15 PM

I'm not sure
From a reading of the links, they seem to be saying that the time between the Big Bang and the formation of the galaxy string isn't long enough for the galaxy string to form. However, they estimate the time of the Big Bang as about 13 billion years ago and the galaxy string formation at 10 and a bit billion years ago. Thing is, as we see further and further back (or away) the estimate of the age of the universe increases. There may not have been long enough if the universe is only 13 billion years old, but what if it is 15 billion or 18 billion years old, or even older. Does that not mean that there may have been enough time, but that we're still underestimating the age of the universe?
 This message is a reply to: Message 7 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-17-2004 4:15 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003

 Message 9 of 19 (92958) 03-17-2004 4:31 PM Reply to: Message 7 by Itachi Uchiha03-17-2004 4:15 PM

Hello, JazzLover.

Actually, I did look at the links. They are articles on bona fide scientific websites. The first link brings us to a NASA website (I suspect the other pages are legitimate science, too, but I couldn't quickly figure out to whom they belonged). I suspect the relevant quote, from the NASA site, is:

 This new structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved, which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early.

Now, first of all, supposedly there is a conspiracy among evolutionist scientists to suppress data fatal to the evolutionary religion. Yet here we have, an official scientific organization, run by actual "evolutionary" scientists, admitting to the public that there is some very interesting data.

The second link contains the following quote:

 Just like the previous HDFs, the new data are expected to galvanize the astronomical community and lead to dozens of research papers that will offer new insights into the birth and evolution of galaxies.

You see, this is how science works. We, today, do not entirely understand the early universe, what it was like, how it evolved, what exactly the conditions were. Scientists admit that. There are some models based on our current understanding, but there aren't a lot of constraints on those models. More data is good, to be able to tell which models are good and which are bad. And scientists love data that contradict the models; it presents exciting problems to be resolved. Trying to understand mysteries is why people go into science. Trying to understand mysteries is why scientists get paid.

Here's the scoop: the universe is old. It has been expanding for a very very long time. The observational evidence, and the scientific theories are very consistent and very definite about that.

The question is not whether the universe is old. The question is this: seeing how the universe is expanding, the early universe must have been a very different place than now; what was the universe like? How did the galaxies form?

Scientists have now found interesting puzzles about the early universe. But all the evidence points to the fact that the universe is very, very ancient, and these observations do not make that evidence disappear.

 This message is a reply to: Message 7 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-17-2004 4:15 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

Sylas
Member (Idle past 3370 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002

 Message 10 of 19 (92997) 03-17-2004 6:27 PM Reply to: Message 7 by Itachi Uchiha03-17-2004 4:15 PM

 jazzlover_PR writes:I bet you didnt even bother to take a look at the link. This is serious stuff for the big bang fans. These are no ordinary links they are from credible sources which is what you evos always ask for. If they dig further into this we could have the makings of a new theory of the origins of the universe. I hope nobody here starts saying that this is not science because it can be anymore clear that the big bang theory is in the big trouble.

The request for more discussion than mere weblinks is a request that people actually follow the guidelines for this discussion forum. The presumption that someone did not read the links is unwarranted, contentious, and irrelevant.

But speaking for myself, I most certainly have looked at the links, with great interest, and well before they were ever raised in this forum.

The links explicitly deny the notion that this could be the seed for a new theory to overthrow big bang cosmology. Sure; you can dream that this might happen. But the actual evidence and argument and implications show no indication of a fundamental problem with the idea of a big bang itself.

The best starting link is the first: Giant Galaxy String Defies Models of How Universe Evolved, which is by the Australian astronomer Paul Francis, who made the discovery. It in turn links directly to the press release, to detailed technical papers, to animations and pictures, and to a FAQ to handle common questions by interested readers.

From the FAQ:

Does this prove the Big Bang Theory wrong?
No - the evidence for the Big Bang is now pretty overwhelming and this certainly won't budge it.
...
So how can you explain this enormous filament?
We don't know! There are two possibilities. The first is that there is something wrong in our understanding of cosmology. Perhaps the universe is older than we think [...], or started off lumpier than we think [...]. But this is unlikely - recent breakthroughs [...] lead us to believe that we know the age and composition of the universe quite well.

Which leads us to the second possibility. All we are seeing is the location of the bright galaxies. But most of the universe is made of dark matter, not bright galaxies. We don't know what dark matter is [...] but we do know that it out-numbers normal matter by at least 100:1.

Perhaps the dark matter isn't lined up in a string. It's only the bright galaxies that are lined up, [...]

None of which removes the puzzle of why we see this string. The puzzle now is why bright galaxies only chose to form in the string, and not in the other regions, [...]

This is not what currently models predict. But galaxy formation is poorly understood, so nobody would be too surprised if galaxies decided to work in this bizarre way.

I've summarized to extract the primary gist. The link gives additional commentary I have omitted.

Basically, this is a very interesting discovery, with the potential to help improve our understanding of galaxy formation, and development of the early universe. There is nothing here at all to refute the notion of the big bang itself. The observations -- like just about everything in observational astronomy -- is utterly inexplicable within a YEC framework.

This also answers Trixie's question in Message 8. At a long shot, this might indicate that the universe is older than 13.7 billion years, which is the current best estimate. But that is highly unlikely; the evidence for the age of the universe is still good and not refuted by this discovery. The solution is far more likely to lie in areas which we don't understand all that well as yet; dark matter and galaxy formation.

Cheers -- Sylas

[This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-17-2004]

 This message is a reply to: Message 7 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-17-2004 4:15 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

CrackerJack
Inactive Member

 Message 11 of 19 (93001) 03-17-2004 6:37 PM Reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth03-17-2004 3:36 PM

Thanks for that reply. I now know where the error was in my assumption. I assumed the objects were actually moving rather than space expanding, which would have meant we had to be on the surface of the balloon rather than within the balloon in order to achieve the red shifts that we see. But this brings up a new problem, which maybe again is just my stupidity or lack of knowledge...

If the space of the universe is expanding, but the objects in the universe are not moving (or moving very little when compared to the expansion), then a light year is a calculation of distance, but not age. Everything I see in the press says that an object is x light years away from earth, meaning it is x years old. But this is impossible using the expanding space theory because when the light first leaves the object, the space between it and where "earth" was at that time is much less than today. While we assume the speed of light is constant, the ratio of the distance traveled during a period of time, to the total distance between the objects is constantly decreasing as space is expanded between the objects. If the objects in the universe were actually moving away from each other, rather than the space expanding, then using the light year distance as a measurement of age is valid, but if the space is expanding, then this correspondence is not valid.

So if an astronomer says an object was discovered that is 13.2 billion light years away, and we assume that means that the positiion of the object, when a photon of light was emitted from it, is 13.2 billion light years away from the earth at its present location, then the time for this photon of light to travel that distance is actually much less than 13.2 billion years. On the other hand, if you say we are just now seeing the light from an object that was emitted 13.2 billion years ago, it means that the distance between us and the object at the time of emmission is much more than 13.2 billion light years. But this is not at all what is being reported in the press. So either the press has got it all wrong, or (more likely) once again I have missed something really basic. Can someone please straighten me out on this. I'm sorry, maybe this is the wrong place to be asking this question because it is meant for debating the issues.

 This message is a reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 03-17-2004 3:36 PM Loudmouth has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 12 by Eggmann, posted 03-18-2004 4:35 AM CrackerJack has not yet responded Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 03-18-2004 1:40 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded

Eggmann
Inactive Member

 Message 12 of 19 (93092) 03-18-2004 4:35 AM Reply to: Message 11 by CrackerJack03-17-2004 6:37 PM

You may check also this link http://www.eugenesavov.com
to see more discussion on the BB troubles.
 This message is a reply to: Message 11 by CrackerJack, posted 03-17-2004 6:37 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 16 by Sylas, posted 03-18-2004 4:39 PM Eggmann has not yet responded

Loudmouth
Inactive Member

 Message 13 of 19 (93156) 03-18-2004 1:40 PM Reply to: Message 11 by CrackerJack03-17-2004 6:37 PM

quote:
If the space of the universe is expanding, but the objects in the universe are not moving (or moving very little when compared to the expansion), then a light year is a calculation of distance, but not age.

Distance is measured independently of age. Cosmological distances can be measured using several different methodologies which I not very familiar with but seem to include light intensity, paralax measurements (the angle to the object from two different points in earth's orbit) and resolution (inferometry or something like that). If the distance measured is 13 billion light years, then the light we are seeing is 13 billion years old. The conclusion that is reached is that 13 billion years ago there was an object in that spot emitting light. Measurements over time could reveal the objects speed and direction. This would allow us to place the object in its current position, assuming that no other objects in space will cause deviation from this path. I believe that we have been able to track near galaxies, and in fact Andromeda may run into the Milky Way in the near future (one estimate was 900,000 years if I remember correctly, I may have to look that up).

Just as a side note, if two objects are moving away from each other, the speed of light does not change but the frequency does (it causes Red Shift via Dopler effects). If objects are moving towards each other there is a Blue Shift. So movement does not change age estimates.

 This message is a reply to: Message 11 by CrackerJack, posted 03-17-2004 6:37 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded

Raymon
Inactive Member

 Message 14 of 19 (93187) 03-18-2004 4:20 PM Reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth03-17-2004 3:36 PM

Balloon analogy flawed
Hey Loudmouth. I just wanted to give you a heads up on your
description of the universe. While the balloon analogy is often used
to explain the universe, you don't seem to have gotten it quite right.

The analogy of the balloon makes a parrallel with the entire (not just the edge)expanding universe and the surface of the balloon.

Here's a pictorial version courtasy of google:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html

I suppose you could say that by looking out into space, we are looking back in time and therefore looking back into the center of the "balloon". But we don't in any sense live "inside" the ballon as you seem to suggest. Perhaps you already knew this and I'm nitpicking, but I've been reading for a while now and you seem to be one of the more insightful posters, so I'd hate for you to have the wrong information.

 This message is a reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 03-17-2004 3:36 PM Loudmouth has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 15 by Loudmouth, posted 03-18-2004 4:30 PM Raymon has not yet responded Message 18 by CrackerJack, posted 03-19-2004 6:25 AM Raymon has not yet responded

Loudmouth
Inactive Member

 Message 15 of 19 (93189) 03-18-2004 4:30 PM Reply to: Message 14 by Raymon03-18-2004 4:20 PM

Re: Balloon analogy flawed
Raymon,

Thanks. Astronomy is not one of my strengths. I was hoping that if I got anything wrong someone would cover my ass. Perhaps you could take a look at the posts I responded to and add to them, or correct them? I probably shouldn't have strayed outside the realm of my knowledge, but sometimes that is the only way to learn.

 This message is a reply to: Message 14 by Raymon, posted 03-18-2004 4:20 PM Raymon has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 17 by Eggmann, posted 03-19-2004 3:05 AM Loudmouth has not yet responded Message 19 by Eggmann, posted 03-21-2004 5:34 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 1 2 Next