Bang or No Bang

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:55 am

Hello All

Reading many posts I find people not understanding the theory behind the Big Bang.

I do not agree with the BBT, but! that does not make me right. I'm not emotionally attached to any theory.

Here are some links in support of the Big Bang. Maybe discuss the supporting issues.

Tango at your speed. I will try to refer to each link. I hope Neried doesn't object to these links.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

A Glimpse of the Young Milky Way
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p.../pr-19-02.html

Evidence for the Big Bang
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr....html#firstlaw

Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#XIN

History of the Big Bang Theory
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/art...ig_bang_theory

Chapter 10 Origin of the Elements
http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/tea...pdf/Chap10.pdf

Mysterious iron factory in the Early Universe
http://www.mpe-garching.mpg.de/Highl...r20020708.html

Phase Transitions in the Early Universe
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/cs_phase.html

THE BIG BANG:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

If anybody has links that can support the Big Bang, please post them.

makc · Post by **makc** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:49 am

and the subject of discussion is...?

goredsox · Post by **goredsox** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 5:41 pm

I was hoping the topic of discussion was "Bang or No Bang", which to me would give equal airtime to evidence for BBT and evidence against BBT.

I am a BBT skeptic. I read the first and last links above from harry (the other links were down, I'm afraid). The last link was particularly clearly written, but I think exposed some flaws in BBT.

For instance, BBT clearly relies on the assumption that matter in the ENTIRE universe is homogeneous and isotropic, not just the the portion within our visible horizon. But how can we make that assumption? Within our observable horizon there is at least one huge hole ( see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070827.html ). And then what about the universe beyond our visible horizon? What observations support matter being homogeneous out there?

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:09 pm

Hello MarkC

Its called lateral thinking.

Hello goredsox you have the discussion. Bang or no bang.

I gave the list above so that people could read and try to understand the Big Bang Theory before they get blasted by other theories.

I must say I do not like the words alternative theories. It limits science to be controlled and managed as history proves the point.

makc · Post by **makc** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:15 am

hello harry,

the scientific discussion in Nereid's definition means, you take theory and discuss something inside the limits of that theory.

here, you put a bunch of links (does not matter (to me) if they are to scientific or non-scientific material) and sit back waiting until someone will come and do your job for you (by saying "BBT is wrong").

but maybe I am wrong about this, and we will see some valid subject here...

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:41 am

Hello MarkC

Have you been fishing.

If you have than you may understand, what I'm trying to do.

AS for Neired, I'm married to her twin sister as so to speak. Darn same character.

==========================

The topic is open to discussion, I do not want to direct the discussion.

I hope for it to be an open discussion.

No cats or dogs.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:33 am

Fishing? , , , , , , , , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 actually I thought it more of a web as in spider web 0 O 0 0 O 0

And, for "value added";
The BBT may need to be thought of more along the lines of a fire works explosion, having multiple stages of "expansions of explosions".

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:53 pm

Hello Craterchains

You said

The BBT may need to be thought of more along the lines of a fire works explosion, having multiple stages of "expansions of explosions".

Are you saying that it started from one point and contracted back to the same point or some point?

And if its expanding to be actual distance or expansion in space and time without actual distance.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:20 pm

Hello All

Lets start with the link

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

Gamow, Alpher and Herman proposed the hot Big Bang as a means to produce all of the elements. However, the lack of stable nuclei with atomic weights of 5 or 8 limited the Big Bang to producing hydrogen and helium. Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle worked out the nucleosynthesis processes that go on in stars, where the much greater density and longer time scales allow the triple-alpha process (He+He+He -> C) to proceed and make the elements heavier than helium. But BBFH could not produce enough helium. Now we know that both processes occur: most helium is produced in the Big Bang but carbon and everything heavier is produced in stars. Most lithium and beryllium is produced by cosmic ray collisions breaking up some of the carbon produced in stars.

So we have 3 but not limited processes

1) Big Bang Producing H and He
2)Star internal process producing from C to Fe/Ni and at some stage producing the heavier elements.
3) Li and Be formed from C via cosmic ray collisions.

But! in the following link it states that Li was formed in the next few minutes

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html

The Universe's light-element abundance is another important criterion by which the Big Bang hypothesis is verified. It is now known that the elements observed in the Universe were created in either of two ways. Light elements (namely deuterium, helium, and lithium) were produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang, while elements heavier than helium are thought to have their origins in the interiors of stars which formed much later in the history of the Universe. Both theory and observation lead astronomers to believe this to be the case.

Is their statements correct?

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:58 pm

I said what I said 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O 0 0 0

Go watch the fireworks 00000000000000000000

goredsox · Post by **goredsox** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:44 pm

Harry, here's my view of your question.

I always thought BBT was best at explaining the current state of the universe, in terms of it's expansion, dimensions, structure, distribution of matter and energy. But here you are showing BBT theorists who have focused on the creation of the elements, and in what order. To me, these are two separate questions. Well, okay. One can combine the two issues into one problem with one solution, but my point is you don't have to.

Also, I do not see enough evidence to support the statements in your links by Martin White, Professor of Astronomy, UC Berkeley. I am questioning even the fundamental notion that elements were created at a uniform point in space-time.

If others can enlighten me, I am at attention.

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:36 am

Hello All

Craterchains said

I said what I said 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O 0 0 0

Go watch the fireworks 00000000000000000000

I agree with that statement.

Goredox said

I always thought BBT was best at explaining the current state of the universe, in terms of it's expansion, dimensions, structure, distribution of matter and energy. But here you are showing BBT theorists who have focused on the creation of the elements, and in what order. To me, these are two separate questions. Well, okay. One can combine the two issues into one problem with one solution, but my point is you don't have to.

The BBT has to cover all aspects. Not just aspects that we want.

You said

Also, I do not see enough evidence to support the statements in your links by Martin White, Professor of Astronomy, UC Berkeley. I am questioning even the fundamental notion that elements were created at a uniform point in space-time.

I agree 100%. So tell me your thoughts.

Reminds me of the old saying

A penny for your thoughts.

goredsox · Post by **goredsox** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:40 am

Well, after you hear my thoughts you will wish you hadn't paid a penny for them.

Here we go. I don't see why the elemenal hydrogen/helium in our sun had to have been created 13.7 billion years ago. The sun formed 4.5 billion years ago. I agree that something very interesting happened 13.7 billion years ago, but it didn't have to include the instantaneous creation of hydrogen and helium atoms that ended up in our solar system. To me it is more plausible that as a result of a BB energy was dispersed through pre-existing matter along with inflation of space. Why do we have to create all of the universe's elemental hydrogen and helium out of energy in one place at one time to explain what we observe today? It could just as easily have been created before the BB, or long after the BB. Since something like 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that we do not know the compostion of, it seems ludicrous to me to go to the trouble of constructing mathematical models to taylor the creation of the remaining 10% at an arbitrary point in time.

makc · Post by **makc** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:09 pm

harry wrote:The BBT has to cover all aspects. Not just aspects that we want.

No it has not. Just as Newton gravity theory doesn't have to explain Mercury perihelion shift. BBT has its scope, as any theory. It is not applicable outside of its scope. This was explained to you in length.

On the contrary, any new theory proposed instead of BBT has to "cover all aspects", both explained by BBT and not. Some theories you know about fail to do that, and that's why Nereid call them "pseudoscience".

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:14 pm

To me it is more plausible that as a result of a BB energy was dispersed through pre-existing matter along with inflation of space.

You seem to be suggesting that the Universe existed before the BB, that the BB then spread material through it, and caused space to expand. But if the BB caused the expansion how did the material get mixed so thoroughly? In your picture either:

----The BB throws the material out into the prexisting material which remains at rest, which would mean we should see structures that are moving apart and others (from the prexisting material) that are stationary relative to the explosion, with the new material flying off between the old stuff. This of course is not what is seen.

---- The BB starts everything expanding, including the prexisting material, in which case nothing really gets mixed, so you would see a shell of new material expanding with the old material expanding just in front of it, and never the twain shall meet.

Of course in any case this idea is obviously much more complicated than the original BB, as now you have to have two formation events. I'll stick to the simpler version which fits the facts.

makc · Post by **makc** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:08 pm

astro_uk wrote:...more complicated than the original BB, as now you have to have two formation events. I'll stick to the simpler version which fits the facts.

Why is there (philosophic) need in 2nd formation? Why matter simply can't exist always?...

Well, to give this more "scientific" context, think about what science predicts will happen to matter in a 100..0 billion of years. Let's say we will not have universal collapse, and it will keep expanding. This should cool everything down and reduce matter density to ~0, but let us imagine we (imaginary "observers") have managed to stick around some gravitationally or otherwise bound piece of matter, let's say lonely rock in an empty space.

Now. What would prevent this rock from continuing to exist in that state forever? Okay, I heard some theories predict that in 10^30 or whatever years protons crack. But then, we have new particles, and so on, and on. Basically, matter is thought of as something indestructible. So, where would it all go?

makc · Post by **makc** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:26 pm

btw, Nereid's last post was ~20 days ago... I guess you all bored her... I just merged a thread she missed (as pointed out by craterchains). This would be my 1st merge in a three month.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:51 pm

makc wrote:btw, Nereid's last post was ~20 days ago... I guess you all bored her... I just merged a thread she missed (as pointed out by craterchains). This would be my 1st merge in a three month.

Well
Are't these the Blletin Boreds?

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:16 am

Hello All

There are some issues

The model that fits the facts is not yet to be seen. Unless you use the observations and no some theoretical model.

The other issue is that matter recycles, we see this in the stella processes, matter to degenerate matter and ejected and reforms normal matter and the formation of the elements. This applies to all compacted cores including the so called black holes.

As for the EXPANSION of matter, it can happen in several ways. One is via the jets created by the compacted cores some pump matter millions of light years from the neucleon in smaller galaxies like M87 it pumps out about 100,000 light years. This power reforms galaxies and is responsible for the evolution and the different forms of galaxies that we can observe.

I wish I could continue, but I have to go and pick up the kids.

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:32 am

How can you think of picking up your kids when you have the important task of solving the mystery of where the Universe came from and where it is going? Don't they realize they can walk home? Get back to your job here. While you are at it, please explain hiccups.

goredsox · Post by **goredsox** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:25 am

Hi makc:

I think makc hit it right on the head when he said that BBT has its scope, as any theory. My objections to current BBT are (a) certain tenets within the accepted theory are rigid and dogmatic in the face of the evolving status of our observations, and (b) it is trying to explain everything, and as a result, it overreaches credulity and explains nothing. I believe that the best documented and reproduceable observations of our universe are like an equation with multiple simultaneous unsolved variables. Logically there can be many equally likely solutions (i.e. many likely competing theories to BBT) with markedly different story lines and markedly different predictions. Rather than latching onto just one small set of solutions like a herd, cosmologists would serve humanity best by objectively presenting and evaluating the pros and cons of other solutions dispassionately.

Hi astroUK:

Yes, I would absolutely suggest that a valid, competing theory to BBT could state that the universe existed before the BB. I am perpetually surprised that this possibility could be so easily dismissed. For instance, let us say that in this scenario, the universe existed prior to the BB, it contained matter, and when the 'event' that created the microwave background radiation that we see occured some 13.7 billion light years ago, it reorganized matter and space profoundly, likely by recycling matter and energy and by propogating waves of energy and/or matter through an existing substrate. Remember that if dark matter is 90% of the universe, and we have never observed it and do not know what it consists of, where it is, and which way it is moving, we are not in any position to debate whether enough structure is stationary or moving to support this model.

Hi Harry:

You said that "The model that fits the facts is not yet to be seen" and I agree. My concern is with the presence of dark matter in the universe. Would you personally consider this a "fact" or a "theoretical model", in view of the reproduceable observation of acceleration of expansion?

Thank you all for carrying out this enlightening discussion.

makc · Post by **makc** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:49 am

goredsox wrote:Logically there can be many equally likely solutions (i.e. many likely competing theories to BBT) with markedly different story lines and markedly different predictions.

True, it's just that astronomers have not come up with a one yet that would make at least equally good predictions

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:35 am

Hello All

Hello geckzilla.

My kids are my universe. They cost me the earth.

What part do you want me to discuss?

You said

While you are at it, please explain hiccups.

Caused by CO2 inbalance. That is why you are asked to hold your breath or drink water upside down.

===============================

Hello goredsox

You said

My concern is with the presence of dark matter in the universe. Would you personally consider this a "fact" or a "theoretical model", in view of the reproduceable observation of acceleration of expansion?

Reproducing acceleration of expansion. Of what?

====================================

MarkC

The recycling universe fits all: I think

It can also fit the Big Bang: But not all at the same time or place.

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:48 pm

For instance, let us say that in this scenario, the universe existed prior to the BB, it contained matter, and when the 'event' that created the microwave background radiation that we see occured some 13.7 billion light years ago, it reorganized matter and space profoundly, likely by recycling matter and energy and by propogating waves of energy and/or matter through an existing substrate

I think the point is that, for this to be the case it would likely be indistinguishable from the BBT case, so why choose to believe in the more complicated case, for anything other than some philosophical reasoning?

Everything we see in the Universe, from atoms, to stars to galaxies has ages consistent with having an age less than the big bang, if you are so fundamentally rearranging things that you are "resetting the clock" how can you tell if there was anything before? It becomes indistinguishable from the standard "everything created at once" picture.

As I see it, your preference for your picture comes about because of discomfort with the idea of a finite age to the universe. Is there any scientific reason why a two phase universe should be preferred?

goredsox · Post by **goredsox** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:35 am

astro_uk said:

Is there any scientific reason why a two phase universe should be preferred?

No, but there isn't any reason that a one phase universe should be preferred either. It is arbitrary because empirical evidence does not apply at all to what came before BB. I think preferring one phase over all other possible numbers of phases represents a bias, and more phases are statistically more likely.
You said that choosing more phases is choosing the more complicated solution, but I think that changing BBT so that it creates all matter in the universe in one place at one time with no prior phase is the more complicated solution.

harry said:

Reproducing acceleration of expansion. Of what?

Expansion of the universe. Everything is observed to be expanding all the time, and it is accelerating. Dark matter can explain this. So my question to you is whether you consider the existence of Dark Matter to be sufficiently well grounded to be considered fact, or it really just a theoretical model? I ask because we are trying to establish what the facts really are, and where the theoretical model begins.

makc said:

astronomers have not come up with a one yet that would make at least equally good predictions

It would help to catalog all the observations that have been made over the years that were inconsistant with the prevailing BBT of the time. It seems that BBT has been modified to fit the observations after the fact. It would be more convincing if BBT was right before the next observation.