Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Tanypteryx (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,466 Year: 18,502/19,786 Month: 922/1,705 Week: 174/518 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 4408 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 1 of 389 (396852)
04-22-2007 6:10 PM


Okay, for me to fairly evaluate the big bang theory I'd like you to tell me what it's problems still are. Don't say there aren't any 'cause you know there are :)
Now, I'm not talking about it's overall plausability but some individual problems.

Such as:

- Some quasars calculated to be behind galaxies by their red shifts when in fact you can see the quasars are in front of them.
- All asteroids should have already been destroyed if the universe was billions of years old ( I don't know if this is some creationist invention though )
- Problems with quasars


As big bang theorists attempt to solve the age problem by making the time to the big bang longer, they exacerbate the quasar problem. Quasars become even farther away and intrinsically brighter. Yet their temperature remains that of ordinary stars as exhibited by emission spectra of metallic ions that can only exist at a limited range of temperature. They are known to be about stellar size since they vary in brightness on a scale of a few minutes to seconds. How do they stay so bright at such a low temperature in such a small volume? They can't. They must have an intrinsic non-Doppler redshift and be nearby to be explained.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/

- Superclusters dated older than the universe (I will quote from a site)

While galaxies are a mere hundred thousand light-years across and clusters not more than ten million or so, a supercluster might snake through a few hundred million light-years of space.

It turns out that galaxies almost never move much faster than a thousand kilometers per second, about one-three-hundredths as fast as the speed of light.

Simply put, if Tully's objects exist, the universe cannot have begun twenty billion years ago.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

I'd like know if those quotes have any real insight or if they're just ment to fool the gullible(like me), but most of all I'd like to know what you think still are the unsolved problems with the Big Bang theory.

Just in case anyone wants to know, I do believe the BB theory to be correct but wish to discuss it's problems and how&if they will be solved.

What I don't want to discuss here is singularity, dark matter and dark energy because of all of them being such a large subject, save them for their own topic.
NO morality discussions are allowed in this thread!


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by kuresu, posted 04-23-2007 12:37 AM Neutralmind has not yet responded
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 04-23-2007 6:10 AM Neutralmind has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 04-23-2007 8:12 AM Neutralmind has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 04-23-2007 2:54 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Reserve, posted 04-23-2007 6:29 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Zhimbo, posted 04-23-2007 8:05 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Zhimbo, posted 04-23-2007 10:01 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Son Goku, posted 04-25-2007 6:23 AM Neutralmind has responded
 Message 145 by sikosikik5, posted 12-22-2007 11:45 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

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


Message 2 of 389 (396854)
04-22-2007 7:14 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

kuresu
Member (Idle past 797 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 3 of 389 (396866)
04-23-2007 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-22-2007 6:10 PM


All asteroids should have already been destroyed if the universe was billions of years old ( I don't know if this is some creationist invention though )

I don't see how this is a problem with the big bang model. Why? Our universe is roughly 14 billion years old. Our solar system, though, is like 4.5 billion years. All the asteriods in our solar system were created with the solar system.

And it's a pretty big claim to say that all should have been destroyed. The universe is a very big place. It's quite concievable that an asteroid would not collide with something, and even that collision would not necessarily destroy it (look at our asteroid belt, many many collisions, and they are still there).

A problem with the big bang is going to rest with the actual physics, I would think.

As to your limitation on discussing the singularity, I think that might be very difficult, seeing as how it's important with the Big Bang.

And good luck with keeping rob from posting about morality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-22-2007 6:10 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 4 of 389 (396886)
04-23-2007 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-22-2007 6:10 PM


Just back from hols and time is at a premium...

So for your two major objections I will just use the usually infallible Reductio ad Idiot method:

Both http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/ and http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm cite Bill Mitchell as one of their big "names" who rejects the Big Bang. From Bill Mitchell's "The Big Bang Theory Under Fire" to be found in your second reference, we have the following gem in his very first chapter "1. IS A SINGULARITY ACCEPTABLE?"

quote:
If there were a Big Bang, it would seem that events during the first instant of time would involve the instantaneous acceleration of the enormous number of particles (the entire mass) of the universe to relativistic velocity; and some variations of Big Bang Theory postulate velocities well above the speed of light. Because the acceleration of even a minute particle to the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy, the Big Bang might have required on the order of an infinity times and infinity of ergs; not to mention the additional energy that would be required to overcome the gravitational attraction of the entire mass of the universe.

This more than adequately identifies Bill Mitchell as having, in astrophysical terminology, no f'ing clue what the hell he is talking about, and thus we have found our Idiot. Consequently we can safely dismiss both of your objections via Reductio ad Idiot.

Next? ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-22-2007 6:10 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 388 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 389 (396890)
04-23-2007 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-22-2007 6:10 PM


The simplest problem
A total understanding of the early universe is difficult. It requires a theory that can fully understand the very small and highly energetic as well as the very large. Quantum physics gives us insight into the small, relativity the very large. Marrying the two is a work in progress.

The earliest conceptions of the big bang model fell apart hopelessly at the very small because of relativity's inadequacy at dealing with that level. We'd get lots of infinite values that made no sense.

More recent models have tried to come to an understanding of the very small end of the big bang and attempted to create a complete chronology - with some good successes, but the main problems now relate to the point at which quantum processes are overwhelmed by relativistic considerations.

A complex problem really - but one which can be relayed in simple terms.

Other issues with early big bang include the dark energy issue and the cosmological constant. Things like this had to be assumed. Newer models make predictions about these figures (predictions which are reflected in reality), but there are more esoteric properties (I'm no expert, but I believe the shape of Calabi-Yau space might be one of these) which have to be assumed...hypotheses abound to explain some of these properties - but I don't think there is any finality on the issue at this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-22-2007 6:10 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by cavediver, posted 04-24-2007 4:52 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 389 (396954)
04-23-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-22-2007 6:10 PM


All asteroids should have already been destroyed if the universe was billions of years old ( I don't know if this is some creationist invention though )

I'm going to say probably "creationist invention." It might be an argument based on the Poynting-Robertson Effect, a real phenomenon that really does cause tiny dust particles to slowly spiral into the Sun. But that effect doesn't do much to sand-grain-or-bigger particles.

The other creationist claim I can readily imagine is that all those zillions of asteroids out there should have all collided and pulverized each other "if the Solar System was really old." It's known, in fact, that asteroids do occasionally collide - these collisions lead to "asteroid families" as well as to dust for the P-R Effect to scoop up. I've seen the results of simulations on these collisions in Science - and the simulations depend on there being billions of years to give enough time to give the results, in terms of "families," we see today.

I got intrigued enough by this to come up with a scale model of the asteroid belt at a scale of 1:10,000,000. That makes Ceres, the largest asteroid, a small sand grain about 0.1 millimeter in diameter orbiting 41 kilometers (25 miles) away from a 139-meter (450-foot) diameter Sun. The other 200,000 or so known main-belt asteroids are mostly scattered around in a doughnut-shaped area 20 kilometers thick, 100 km across, and with a doughnut hole 60 km across. A big doughnut, in other words. And the asteroids are nearly all more the size of bacteria than monsters like Ceres.

The doughnut is big enough, in fact, that those 200,000 asteroids (assuming random distribution, which really isn't so) fill it up to nearly two bacterium-sized grains per cubic kilometer. That's eight per cubic mile. So the chances of collisions aren't as large as antique video games would have you believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-22-2007 6:10 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 04-23-2007 8:10 PM Coragyps has responded

  
Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 4463 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 7 of 389 (396982)
04-23-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-22-2007 6:10 PM


I found a link titled "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community"
Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004

Basically it summarizes some of the problems that these scientists are having with the big bang. I think secular scientists started this letter. Not creationists.

Here is the link:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Follow some of the links to the scientists webpages for more in-depth detail of the problems of the big bang

Edited by Reserve, : Added last two lines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-22-2007 6:10 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Trae, posted 04-23-2007 9:00 PM Reserve has not yet responded
 Message 13 by cavediver, posted 04-24-2007 3:52 AM Reserve has not yet responded

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4296 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 8 of 389 (396993)
04-23-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-22-2007 6:10 PM


quote:
- Some quasars calculated to be behind galaxies by their red shifts when in fact you can see the quasars are in front of them.

You can't tell just by looking if a quasar is in front of a galaxy. Galaxies aren't solid masses, so it's quite possible to see through them.

I think this may be a reference to the quasar seen "in" galaxy NGC 7319. This quasar's spectrum shows absorbtion lines consistent with the quasar's light passing through NGC 7319, meaning it can't be in front. It could be in, but there's no clear reason to think so. The simplest answer is that it is behind NGC 7319.

Edited by Zhimbo, : added clarifying phrase "the quasar's light"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-22-2007 6:10 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 04-24-2007 5:23 AM Zhimbo has not yet responded
 Message 30 by jackal5096, posted 05-11-2007 2:16 PM Zhimbo has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17403
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 9 of 389 (396996)
04-23-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coragyps
04-23-2007 2:54 PM


Coragyps writes:

... a doughnut-shaped area....

I got zapped by a professor once for saying "area" when I meant "volume" - in reference to molecular orbitals, I think.

Memories.... :D


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 04-23-2007 2:54 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-23-2007 8:42 PM ringo has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 389 (397003)
04-23-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ringo
04-23-2007 8:10 PM


Eek! And I know better......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 04-23-2007 8:10 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 2590 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 11 of 389 (397010)
04-23-2007 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Reserve
04-23-2007 6:29 PM


What is it with engineers and signing petitions? They’re as bad as MDs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Reserve, posted 04-23-2007 6:29 PM Reserve has not yet responded

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4296 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 12 of 389 (397018)
04-23-2007 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-22-2007 6:10 PM


The section on Features, issues and problems in the Big Bang wikipedia entry seems to be a pretty fair overview.

One important note is that the general outline of the Big Bang is accepted by virtually everyone.

As a side note, it's always baffled me why many religious people have a problem with the Big Bang. It was once looked it a little oddly by scientists as being a little too similar to a Biblical moment of creation! Alas, the YEC crowed is so wedded to their ridiculously short time scale they must resist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-22-2007 6:10 PM Neutralmind has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 13 of 389 (397052)
04-24-2007 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Reserve
04-23-2007 6:29 PM


re: An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
I think secular scientists started this letter. Not creationists.

Yes, started by Halton Arp and cronies. Halton has invested pretty much his whole life in his own theories of cosmology and just cannot bear to let go - despite being in a desperate minority and despite having each bit of "evidence" he brings forth refuted and explained (though to be fair sometimes these refutations and explanations take a little time to come forth)

The signatories are those few astrophysicists in Halton's extended group plus a few hangers on. The rest of the list is made up of "independent researchers" - i.e. wishful thinkers who would like to think they can do science, and engineers who don't have a clue.

The simple fact is to understand and thus critically examine big bang cosmology, you need to fully understand General Relativity, alternate theories of gravitation, and relevant parts of cosmology and astrophysics. If you satisfy these requirements, you are by definition a physicist and not an engineer. And 99.9% of physicists do not satisfy these criteria either...

Take Bill Mitchell's essay reproduced in the references - this guy reveals his utter ignorance of General Relativity in his first few lines but this does not stop him from making a total idiot of himself by writing that entire "critique".

This is the most specialist of fields and just because it is popularised out of all proportion because it is "interesting" does not mean that anyone with a technical degree has a valid comment... this IS rocket science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Reserve, posted 04-23-2007 6:29 PM Reserve has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jackal5096, posted 05-11-2007 2:29 PM cavediver has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 14 of 389 (397055)
04-24-2007 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
04-23-2007 8:12 AM


Re: The simplest problem
A total understanding of the early universe is difficult

Fortunately this is unnecessary - large scale big bang cosmology is pretty-much independent of quantum gravity corrections in the first few 10^-30 seconds. Unless, that is, you are looking for answers to whether the universe really did have a minimum time at T=0, or is part of a larger extended universe/multiverse, etc. Big bang cosmology depends upon General Relativity and GR does not fall apart just because it has singularities in its solutions. Our lack of a complete quantum gravity is not a "problem" for big bang cosmology.

Inflation is a fairly natural process and would have been suggested eventually even if we didn't need it to solve some earlier major issues - at the end of the day it is simply de Sitter cosmology and nothing bizarre in the slightest (if you are in the field of course :))

Likewise, "dark energy" had always been conspicuous by its absence - it's no surprise now we have seen evidence for it. As with inflation, the only mystery is the precise field responsible for the behaviour. The Standard Model of particle physics is such a total mess of fields that the idea that there aren't a few more is a little crazy, especially as every hypothesis of unification of the existing fields involves extra fields.

Personally, my only slight concern is dark matter - it's a matter field that we haven't tied down yet. Could it signal that there is no dark matter and there are some corrections required to GR, as many suggest???

Good question, but sadly reveals to some extent the ignorance of the questioner - adding a dark matter field to GR IS a correction to GR - it's changing the Lagrangian of space-time physics. How you split up the Lagrangian into different terms is more a matter of our convenience. When we look at what corrections to GR would create the observed effect, we see that adding a matter field is what works best, better than adding extra bosonic fields (forces) and/or changing the type of gravitation (higher order gravity, supersymmetric fields - gravitino, etc).

[ABE: To the layman, cosmologists saying there is some mysterious particle out there making up this dark matter sounds much less elegant than saying that a simple change to gravity could explain the discrepency. To the physicist, it is simply a question of whether we are adding a fermionic or bosonic field - equally (in)elegant, and the winner is the one that fits observation...]

The simple fact is that of all the conceivable changes we could make, dark matter makes the best fit with observation. Could it signal that we have the whole big bang cosmology wrong? - possibly, in the same way that not having a clear picture of abiogenesis could signal that naturalistic non-life to life is wrong...

Edited by cavediver, : some clarification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 04-23-2007 8:12 AM Modulous has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 15 of 389 (397056)
04-24-2007 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Zhimbo
04-23-2007 8:05 PM


Galaxies aren't solid masses, so it's quite possible to see through them.

As evidenced by the fact that we can see NGC 7319 :laugh:

It's a cosmological Gish Gallop. The real problem is that so many of these "problems" are trivially explained in terms of astrophysics/cosmology/relativity but having to provide the astrophysical/cosmological/relativistic education in each single instance to make the explanation understandable is immensely wearing...

To outsiders it sounds as if we are truly stumped but the fact is we are just truly bored ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Zhimbo, posted 04-23-2007 8:05 PM Zhimbo has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019