Last word on the Big Bang.

Interdisciplinary science discussions. Also, if you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here.

Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby hyksos on November 21st, 2020, 6:42 pm 

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that concerns itself with knowledge claims, and what counts as knowledge. Epistemology is in many cases, a set of agreed-upon criteria that set the ground rules for whether a written or verbal claim constitutes a claim of knowledge.

If our epistemic bar is "Does not make sense to me, personally", then the Big Bang theory is wrong coming in the door. One cannot "make sense" of a spacetime singularity, that up-and-decides that being a singularity is boring so better that it transform itself into a universe. That story does more than slightly give off non-physical vibes. Rather it is just flatly un-physical. That story is an affront to metaphysical sensibilities of all stripes.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if our epistemic bar line is "Accurately predicts the results of telescope observations" then the Big Bang is resoundingly successful. In 40 years of various telescopes measuring various things , from white dwarf cooling times , Thorium-90 abundances in galaxies , globular cluster cut-off ages , redshift Hubble constant measurements , and the CMBR, the evidence that the universe "began" in a Big Bang is piling up to the ceiling and beyond.

Hate the big bang theory with all your might. Hate it to your bones. Speak negatively of it in public. Chastise it on the internet. But do not deny what is honestly measured and innocently observed.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1857
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby edy420 on November 21st, 2020, 9:36 pm 

The Big Bang theory is flawed, in the sense that most of our information is based on what we see with the technology at hand.

Our observations may only provide speculation, towards the beginning of the big bang. But we can not speculate before the big bang, based on our observations.

However, Sir Roger Penrose, is working on a Big Bang model, where the universe cycles through Big Bangs, expansions, a freezing period, then back to a new Big Bang. He has a few mathematical problems to resolve with the black holes swallowing the universe again, but it's hard to calculate without observing it in action.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby curiosity on November 21st, 2020, 11:11 pm 

GR is an incomplete theory, because unless gravitons are actually discovered gravitation remains a mystery!
Dark matter is no more than a fudge factor introduced in an attempt to explain why observations don't match predictions.
The only thing we really know, is that our universe was once much smaller than it is today, but a theory of everything is not likely to be published anytime soon.
Hubris is no substitute for facts!!!
curiosity
Member
 
Posts: 423
Joined: 19 Jul 2012


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby bangstrom on November 22nd, 2020, 9:48 pm 

hyksos » November 21st, 2020, 5:42 pm wrote:Hate the big bang theory with all your might. Hate it to your bones. Speak negatively of it in public. Chastise it on the internet. But do not deny what is honestly measured and innocently observed.


Denying a human interpretation for a set of observations is not the same as denying the observations.
Trustworthy observations and measurements do not guarantee the correctness of our interpretations. There may be better interpretations than those that are the most popular or metaphysically satisfying. Even the best appearing interpretations should be considered suspect if they fail to explain some well-supported observation.

edy420 » November 21st, 2020, 8:36 pm wrote:

However, Sir Roger Penrose, is working on a Big Bang model, where the universe cycles through Big Bangs, expansions, a freezing period, then back to a new Big Bang. He has a few mathematical problems to resolve with the black holes swallowing the universe again, but it's hard to calculate without observing it in action.


If black holes swallow bits and pieces of our universe and small black holes coalesce into larger black holes until the whole "shebang" is one enormous black hole, we would be back in a full-blown universe again except one where everything is turned inside out. That is, space and time would swap axes.

curiosity » November 21st, 2020, 10:11 pm wrote:GR is an incomplete theory, because unless gravitons are actually discovered gravitation remains a mystery!
Dark matter is no more than a fudge factor introduced in an attempt to explain why observations don't match predictions.


GR works perfectly well as a geometry- curved spacetime. I see no need for gravitons.

Dark matter is a fudge factor and dark energy is an even greater fudge factor. That makes the mass of our universe 96 percent fudge factors.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby hyksos on November 25th, 2020, 3:13 pm 

There may be better interpretations than those that are the most popular or metaphysically satisfying.

My first question would be : what in the world do you find "metaphysically satisfying" about the Big Bang?

I ask because BB is the most metaphysically un-satisfying theory in all of science, as far as I'm concerned. If metaphysical satisfaction is the motivation and goal here, then Steady State wins hands down by a landslide.

My second question is, do you believe that theories in science prevail because of popularity? Are you aware of any other metric or metrics that are used to validate a theory? What would those be?
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1857
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby hyksos on November 25th, 2020, 3:43 pm 

edy420 » November 22nd, 2020, 5:36 am wrote:The Big Bang theory is flawed, in the sense that most of our information is based on what we see with the technology at hand.

edy420, yeah I've seen this one before. "While the theory accurately and precisely predicts the results of observations, we should forego drawing any conclusions because we haven't measured everything yet." What you have called the limited "technology at hand".

This argument has been made since the very beginnings of science. Galileo built a telescope and used to it identify some of the larger moons of Saturn. Some philosophers doubted that what was being observed were actually satellite moons going around the planet. Philosophers complained that the telescope itself could be introducing artifacts that merely look like moons.

During Galileo's lifetime, optics and the reaction of light with curved glass pieces was not understood well enough to remove this as a plausible source of error. The doubting-Thomas philosophers won that round of debate.

This point is understood in science, and science differs from engineering to the extent that you must include precise descriptions of sources of error. Science always adopts a skeptical position and this is the reason why we need corroboration. We cannot and should not date the earth based off of a single rock pulled off the coast of Ireland in 1984, published in a single paper by a single author. Nor should we base the age of the universe off of a single white dwarf seen in a single galaxy , written about in one paper by one author. We need corroboration both in repeated experiments. We should demand corroboration in get matching estimates from other techniques, or even corroboration across disciplinary lines.

With the Big Bang theory, in 2020 we have this corroboration. The various techniques of aging mentioned in my leader post all cluster around an interval that runs from 10 bya ( globular clusters) to 18.6 bya (radiometric techniques). All the other dating techniques fall inside of this interval. It is not a coincidence that 13.7 bya fits neatly inside that interval.

You have mentioned that we only have observations from our limited "technology at hand" and that we should not jump to conclusions until more data that comes in that will soon upset the applecart (allegedly). This situation with the universe and its beginning is different. I would have to ask you how you define the word "universe"?

This question seems stupid but matters in this context, since "universe" referred to the Milky Way galaxy alone in 1907. Say I decide to define the word "universe" as a box of space with a 23 billion light-year edge, centered around our galaxy. I am allowed to do this, as you are allowed to choose your own definition, as long as you tell us what you mean. It is now impossible to claim that nothing unusual happened to that volume of space in that box circa 14 billion years ago. Something obviously happened, as there are no atoms found in the box which are seen to be older than 18.6 billion years. ( Again, this is not a one-off estimate from a single guy. That estimate is corroborated with 4 other different sets of data and 4 other dating techniques.)

In any case, everyone on this entire forum is under an obligation to put forth an explanation or theory as to WHAT HAPPENED in our local box of the universe 14 billion years ago. Something obviously happened as the data clearly shows. In some sense, the academics and scientists do not need us. They already have mathematically-consistent theory called the Big Bang as the description of what happened. The Big Bang Theory is not flawed -- if by "flawed" we mean it is not matching what is observed.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1857
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby bangstrom on November 25th, 2020, 7:20 pm 

hyksos » November 25th, 2020, 2:13 pm wrote:
My first question would be : what in the world do you find "metaphysically satisfying" about the Big Bang?

I ask because BB is the most metaphysically un-satisfying theory in all of science, as far as I'm concerned. If metaphysical satisfaction is the motivation and goal here, then Steady State wins hands down by a landslide.


The Big Bang may be less satisfying than the Steady State but it beats out most rivals such as Hoyle’s Continuous Creation version of SS, Divine Creation, or Multiverses. A naive version of the BBT is easy to visualize because everyone knows what an explosion looks like.

Edgar Allen Poe explained in the mid 1850s that Newton’s theory of gravity favors a dynamic universe over a steady state. If massive bodies attract, the entire universe should be drawn to a central point by its own gravity. The only way the universe could exist as anything other than a solid lump is if some powerful event caused the masses of the universe to disperse and eventually slow and be drawn back together by gravity so the only way the universe can exist if it is either expanding or contracting or briefly poised between the two.

hyksos » November 25th, 2020, 2:13 pm wrote:
My second question is, do you believe that theories in science prevail because of popularity? Are you aware of any other metric or metrics that are used to validate a theory? What would those be?


Some theories prevail because of popularity. Lee Smolin complains in his book “The Trouble With Physics” that a “herd mentality” favors some theories over others because of their popularity rather than their merit. His prime example is string theory which has led to no new discoveries or understandings despite its popularity. String theory has attracted an inordinate amount of talent and funding to the determent of all other areas of physics. Smolin also complains that string theory adherents have bullied many doubters into silence.

The metrics we have can be used to verify any theory including such theories as Intelligent Design or the Flat Earth. The real test of a theory is not in its verifiability or popularity but in its internal consistency and most importantly, as Thomas Kuhn says, its falsifiability.

hyksos » November 25th, 2020, 2:43 pm wrote: The Big Bang Theory is not flawed -- if by "flawed" we mean it is not matching what is observed.

The trouble is the BBT does not match what is observed as well as should be expected. The universe appears to be older and larger than expected after just 14 billion years of expansion. Also, expansion should be slowed by gravity- not accelerating. Guth’s inflationary period and dark energy are two explanations invented ad-hoc to explain away the discrepancies between what is predicted and what is observed.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Forced to Admit It

Postby Faradave on November 26th, 2020, 12:03 pm 

Gravity is lightlike. Gravitational waves propagate at speed limit c.

sun field.png
An instance of a gravitational field describes a light cone. The earth now feels the attraction of the sun about 8.5 minutes ago and vice versa.
Gravity, as any force, has a forward temporal component. As objects attract (or repel) they are also drawn forward in time. With a curved-space, radial-time model that means the gravity of both pulls outward to concentrically expanded future space. (That is to a bigger balloon.)
User avatar
Faradave
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2012
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Forced to Admit It

Postby hyksos on November 28th, 2020, 3:00 am 

Faradave » November 26th, 2020, 8:03 pm wrote:Gravity is lightlike. Gravitational waves propagate at speed limit c.

Gravity, as any force, has a forward temporal component. As objects attract (or repel) they are also drawn forward in time. With a curved-space, radial-time model that means the gravity of both pulls outward to concentrically expanded future space. (That is to a bigger balloon.)

"With a curved-space,"

Yes. But I think this was done already.

https://uncw.edu/phy/documents/thefriedmannequations.pdf
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1857
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby hyksos on November 28th, 2020, 3:07 am 

The Big Bang may be less satisfying than the Steady State but it beats out most rivals such as Hoyle’s Continuous Creation version of SS, Divine Creation, or Multiverses. A naive version of the BBT is easy to visualize because everyone knows what an explosion looks like.


You have appealled here to metaphysical satistifaction being measured by folk psychology and ease of visualization by the populace. This is an appeal to popularity -- which is strange for a guy who rails against popularity.

Rest assured the Big Bang was not an explosion in an existing empty space. The Big Bang theory is claiming something quite different than that. You have voiced a misunderstanding about the BBT that is made by high school kids, and you did it on this forum, inside a thread that I created. That's an insult.

Edgar Allen Poe explained in the mid 1850s that Newton’s theory of gravity favors a dynamic universe over a steady state. If massive bodies attract, the entire universe should be drawn to a central point by its own gravity. The only way the universe could exist as anything other than a solid lump is if some powerful event caused the masses of the universe to disperse and eventually slow and be drawn back together by gravity so the only way the universe can exist if it is either expanding or contracting or briefly poised between the two.


Yes. Looks good. This is one of the reasons our recent theories have Dark Energy. ( maybe Dark Energy is not as ad-hoc as you claimed...?)


Some theories prevail because of popularity. Lee Smolin complains in his book “The Trouble With Physics” that a “herd mentality” favors some theories over others because of their popularity rather than their merit.


In precise terms, can you explain what you mean when you say a theory prevails over another on merit?


The metrics we have can be used to verify any theory including such theories as Intelligent Design or the Flat Earth.


Who is "we" here?

What metrics that verify Intelligent Design and Flat earth?

The real test of a theory is not in its verifiability or popularity but in its internal consistency and most importantly, as Thomas Kuhn says, its falsifiability.


Is it your stated position that the Big Bang theory is internally inconsistent and unfalsifiable?


The trouble is the BBT does not match what is observed as well as should be expected. The universe appears to be older and larger than expected after just 14 billion years of expansion.


You have claimed that you are in possession of evidence that contradicts the Big Bang. Do you have any citations which someone could use to verify your claim?
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1857
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
TheVat liked this post


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby Dave_C on November 28th, 2020, 9:34 am 

I've recently (in the past year) heard that the "infinite universe" couldn't have arisen from a singularity, that an infinite universe was already infinitely large at the time of the big bang. The theory holds that the big bang still occurred, but it occurred to an already infinitely large universe.

Is this a recent development? Any good references?
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown


Re: Crunch Hunch

Postby Faradave on November 28th, 2020, 12:34 pm 

hyksos wrote:But I think [curved-space] was done already.

Well, the balloon analogy has been given but usually comes with an absurd disclaimer, specifically denying the radial-time of my model.
"This [balloon] analogy is potentially confusing since it wrongly suggests that the big bang took place at the center of the balloon. In fact points off the surface of the balloon have no meaning, even if they were occupied by the balloon at an earlier time."

Note their use of "earlier time" to deny that the radius is temporal. Ha! Corresponding points on nested concentric spheres describe the radius, which happens to elongate with 3-sphere expansion over time.

However, my main point is that gravity, as with all force, is lightlike. Whether objects are seen to accelerate or not, forces have a futureward component which is expansional! This conflicts with the prevailing, incorrect notion that gravity opposes expansion (urging a "Big Crunch"), and giving rise to theories of dark energy to overcome this.
"The cosmological constant was first proposed by Einstein as a mechanism to obtain a solution of the gravitational field equation that would lead to a static universe, effectively using dark energy to balance gravity." - Wikipedia

"Cosmologists estimate that the acceleration began roughly 5 billion years ago. Before that, it is thought that the expansion was decelerating, due to the attractive influence of matter." - Wikipedia
User avatar
Faradave
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2012
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)
curiosity liked this post


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby hyksos on November 28th, 2020, 5:24 pm 

Faradave,

Your ease in embracing theory is both parts refreshing, and very rare on the internet.

"This [balloon] analogy is potentially confusing since it wrongly suggests that the big bang took place at the center of the balloon. In fact points off the surface of the balloon have no meaning, even if they were occupied by the balloon at an earlier time."

I don't know who wrote this, but this is just wrong. Points outside the balloon absolutely have a meaning. Our universe could be embedded in a higher dimension, and the choice to do this is perfectly meaningful, even mathematically consistent.

(I would ask the writer to just google Kaluza–Klein)
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1857
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby TheVat on November 28th, 2020, 7:01 pm 

M-theorists call it "the bulk. " You could have an eternal Bulk, with big bangs eternally popping in it in a purely random way. Not really a testable idea, at this point, unfortunately.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7818
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Calling Time Out?

Postby Faradave on November 29th, 2020, 1:50 am 

It's possible to have a balloon analogy in 4D hyperspace (four spatial dimensions) but I advise against it.

1. Such a model leaves time conspicuously out. We could say there's a clock ruing elsewhere and timelines are just not shown but why?

2. The volume of the cosmos is represented by the expanding balloon (a 3-sphere). The cosmos expands as it ages. So, one way or another, the radius of the 3-sphere relates to cosmic age, which is invariant time (all observers can agree on it, even as their on aging varies).

3. If we adapt a familiar Minkowski space-time diagram to the balloon analogy, it clearly yields curved-space, radial-time.
Image
Let blue dot = event (here,now) in both diagrams. Red dot = big bang event, most simply represented on the right.


A fourth spatial dimension seems to me an extravagance. Literally a waste of space.
User avatar
Faradave
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2012
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby bangstrom on November 29th, 2020, 7:35 am 

hyksos » November 28th, 2020, 2:07 am wrote:
Yes. Looks good. This is one of the reasons our recent theories have Dark Energy. ( maybe Dark Energy is not as ad-hoc as you claimed...?)


I prefer theories that don’t require the invention of some mysterious “dark” force to make them work.

hyksos » November 28th, 2020, 2:07 am wrote:
In precise terms, can you explain what you mean when you say a theory prevails over another on merit?

A theory has “merit” when it is internally consistent, explained the known laws of physics, consistent with observation, and falsifiable but lacking in contrary evidence. That is too much to expect from any complex theory but some are better than others.

hyksos » November 28th, 2020, 2:07 am wrote:
Who is "we" here?

What metrics that verify Intelligent Design and Flat earth?

The “we” is anyone who has looked into the topic.

If you look into some of the fringe theories such as ID or the Flat Earth, you will discover that they use the same observations to support their theories as do those who support the opposite. The difference is that different individuals look at the same evidence but from different points of view.

The cautionary take-away from this is an awareness of how influential one’s personal point of view can be to their interpretation of a body of evidence and the error in looking at a complex problem from a single point of view and excluding all others. Looking at an issue from more than a single point of view gives us a greater perspective by using one point of view to test the correctness of another.

hyksos » November 28th, 2020, 2:07 am wrote:
Is it your stated position that the Big Bang theory is internally inconsistent and unfalsifiable?


Inconsistent and unfalsifiable” are mutually exclusive conditions. My position is that I am not sold on the entirety of the theory.

hyksos » November 28th, 2020, 2:07 am wrote:
You have claimed that you are in possession of evidence that contradicts the Big Bang. Do you have any citations which someone could use to verify your claim?


Are you suggesting there is NO publicly known, credible evidence contradicting the Big Bang?

My personal source of doubt about the Big Bang mainly involves the theory’s heavy reliance on the distant galactic redshifts as indicators for the age and extent of the universe. My doubts began long ago with an article by Edward Harrison in “Physical Review Letters.” I don’t have the citation handy but I still have a copy of the article somewhere in my piles of papers.

Briefly, Harrison decided to test the correctness of the BB density value for the universe. He reverse-engineered the math by guessing different density values and then crunching the numbers to see which set of values coincided best with observations.

This is a summary of Harrison’s conclusions from “Sky and Telescope” September 1993.

“With the enormous successes of Big Bang cosmology and inflationary-universe theory, the ‘standard model of the universe’ goes almost unquestioned by cosmologists these days. In this picture...the Big Bang happened around 10 or 15 billion years ago, and, very early in the Big Bang, inflation gave the cosmos precisely the right density to balance it forever between rapid expansion and recollapse.…

“Or maybe not. As an exercise, cosmologist Edward Harrison (University of Massachusetts,
Amherst) tried to devise a radically different universe [and] succeeded surprisingly well. In Harrison’s most extreme model...the expansion is very slow [and] the density of the universe today is about 10 times greater than needed to halt the expansion....Harrison’s universe is 35 billion years old. ...The universe will cease expanding in another 22 billion years, then begin recollapsing toward a Big Crunch 79 billion years in the future.”

Harrison’s cooked-up model passed all the major observational tests — without the need to invoke unknown types of dark matter.”




bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby curiosity on November 30th, 2020, 10:00 pm 

I prefer theories that don’t require the invention of some mysterious “dark” force to make them work.


So Do I... However, there isn't actually anything mysterious about the energy which drives the expansion of our universe, it is a form of energy which certainly doesn't warrant the prefix "dark". Neither does it need to be "invented", as its existence can easily be explained and its effect measured.
curiosity
Member
 
Posts: 423
Joined: 19 Jul 2012


Re: Last word on the Big Bang.

Postby bangstrom on December 2nd, 2020, 1:59 am 

Since when has dark energy become a known and why wasn't I informed? I am still in the dark.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: 18 Sep 2014



Return to Anything Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests