Do You Accept The Big Bang Theory?

[Stadium-Armory]

I do. But until the unanswered questions are answered, one must be open to the possibility of other scenarios.

[thebluefood]

No, I don't accept it. That show sucks.

[CapnRedskins]

Yeah, I think it's hilarious and Penny is smokin' hot!

[PeterMP]

So, is there another theory other than the big bang that has any scientific credence? Big bang just leaves too many unanswered questions. From the layman:

(1) Can matter be infinitely small, yet still hold the same weight? I.E. how small must the "point" have been? What caused it to be a certain size? Why wasn't it smaller? Was there a rule of physics preventing it from being smaller?

(2) If the universe is expanding at the speed of light, how could it ever stop? If there is nothing on the "outside" of the universe to provide resistance, won't the expansion continue infinitely? It's not like there is some cosmic wall out there that will be reached at 15 billion years.

1. There is something called a singularity. They could be of infinite density so an infinite amount of matter pacted into an infinitely small space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

Now, there are some issues with the idea, but that's the current line of thinking.

2. Gravity could slow expansion.

[MartinC]

1. There is something called a singularity. They could be of infinite density so an infinite amount of matter pacted into an infinitely small space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

Now, there are some issues with the idea, but that's the current line of thinking.

2. Gravity could slow expansion.

Whats the current state of research into the conditions before the Big Bang or theories on this?

[egtuna]

All of you who posted in this thread would probably really enjoy the following video:

http://www.amnh.org/explore/amnh.tv/(watch)/isaac-asimov-memorial-debate/2013-isaac-asimov-memorial-debate-the-existence-of-nothing

It's a discussion about "What is Nothing, and Does it Exist?" hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. It's fascinating as all get out and touches on the whole "what is the big bang?" and "what existed -if anything- before the big bang?"

One point made by one of the scientists was that the idea of a universe that expands and then contracts and expands again over and over was not verifiable through repeated experiments, so it is not a commonly accepted theory at this time.

Enjoy.

[PeterMP]

Whats the current state of research into the conditions before the Big Bang or theories on this?

Well, I wouldn't say there are a whole lot of theories on this just ideas.

And there isn't a whole lot of research because of issues of "seeing through" the Big Bang.

But people certainly have their favorite ideas and are trying:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/nov/19/penrose-claims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang

(Research on the idea that the Universe is essentially cyclic with expansion and contraction phases).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

(Big Bounce used to describe a set of different cyclic universe ideas.)

And things like where matter/energy came from before the Big Bang:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/nov/19/penrose-claims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang

This has less to do with really what happened before the Big Bang because at least at this time it isn't really testable in the context of the Big Bang.

But just the general idea that quantum mechanics does allow for matter to be created out of nothing.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html

Just because A can happen (matter can be created from nothing in quantum mechanics), it doesn't mean that in case B (the big bang) that it did happen.

[Corcaigh]

Whats the current state of research into the conditions before the Big Bang or theories on this?

While it seems extremely likely that there was some sort of Big Bang, the mechanism is unclear.

The appearance of the early universe and the distribution of radiation lead some folks to claim it's evidence for remnants of the structure of a universe from which ours emerged. Our universe might be one bubble of many, and ours is just 13.5 billion years old, while other bubbles may be much, much older.

Then there is a theory that the Big Bang is the result of colliding membranes ("branes"). This would have the branes moving apart and then back together again to collide many, many billions apart and each one potentially creating Big Bangs and new universes.

To quote one cynical cosmologist when talking about inflation to explain the Big Bang: "Inflation is the worst model we have, except for all the alternatives"

Personally (and not that my opinion amounts to ****), I think we're missing something huge. When we don't understand 95% of the matter in the universe and name it "dark", I think there's an awful lot of work to do before we have much of an understanding of cosmology.

The more detailed measurements we make of the distribution of radiation and matter in the universe, the better chance we will have of identifying theories that might be true, but it seems that the best we might be able to do is maybe infer what happened and what may exist outside our universe. We may never have a definitive answer.

[MartinC]

Well, I wouldn't say there are a whole lot of theories on this just ideas.

And there isn't a whole lot of research because of issues of "seeing through" the Big Bang.

But people certainly have their favorite ideas and are trying:

Thanks - I will have a read through. I dont understand all the science around this area but its a fascinating question (or set of questions).

---------- Post added May-21st-2013 at 09:17 AM ----------

To quote one cynical cosmologist when talking about inflation to explain the Big Bang: "Inflation is the worst model we have, except for all the alternatives"

I have read a little about the inflation theory and its sounded interesting but even allowing that I am a complete layman in this area it seemed to pose as many questions as it answered. The further back in time you go at some point something had to appear out of nothing, even if it was a vacuum. Even if a supreme being was the creator (and I dont believe that personally) someone or something had to create that being ......

Channeling my inner Douglas Adams, at some point there had to be nothing out of which something appeared!

[grhqofb5]

1. There is something called a singularity. They could be of infinite density so an infinite amount of matter pacted into an infinitely small space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

Now, there are some issues with the idea, but that's the current line of thinking.

2. Gravity could slow expansion.

 

So singularity says that all of the matter in the universe was packed into an infinitely dense point.  Which tells me that if the point was infinitely dense, it must also be infinitely large if turned inside out.  But we know that the universe is not infinitely large because it is expanding, i.e. it ends somewhere, or it has somewhere to still go.  And we have the paradox to prove this-- the stars lighting up the sky thing (there would be no blackness if the universe were infinite because there would be too many stars, hence all we would see would be stars and light).

[PeterMP]

So singularity says that all of the matter in the universe was packed into an infinitely dense point.  Which tells me that if the point was infinitely dense, it must also be infinitely large if turned inside out.  But we know that the universe is not infinitely large because it is expanding, i.e. it ends somewhere, or it has somewhere to still go.  And we have the paradox to prove this-- the stars lighting up the sky thing (there would be no blackness if the universe were infinite because there would be too many stars, hence all we would see would be stars and light).

 

1.  I said the singularity could be infinitely dense, but it doesn't have to be.  I think everybody agrees the universe has finite mass (still would be infinitely dense if was infintely small).

 

2.  The size would depend on the density and at least currently, the density of the universe is not equal to 1/infinity, I don't think.

 

3.  Things that are infinite can get bigger (the set of positive integers is infinite.  If I add the set of negative integers to that set of positive integers, it got bigger.).  However, for this conversation we can simplify the discussion without getting into the nature of infinity.  The universe may or may not be infinite, but when people talk about the universe expanding, they mean the matter in the universe so things are getting further apart.  If you'd like in terms of the size the universe, the distance between the matter in the Univerise is expanding into non-matter containing universe.

 

4.  Olber's paradox (why is space dark) is only an issue is the Universe is infinite in size and age (the light from some star has had to to travel to every point in space), but the universe is not believed to be infinitely old.  There will be some points where at time = x where no light from a star is at that point.

[grhqofb5]

Well, if the universe is not infinitely large, that's a good start to wrapping our heads around the issue.  Which also calls into question the big bang (maybe it should be called the "finite bang," or the "not that big a deal bang").  BTW, can gravity affect the speed of light?  I know light can be bent, but can it be slowed as well?  So if light is slowed or bent (must travel further), perhaps the universe is not 13.7 billion years old (since the speed of light is how its measured, right?).  Maybe its more like 13.1. billion.

[GibbsFactor]

The something from nothing is actually quite simple.  Basic math.

 

For every piece of matter in existence, there is a piece of anti-matter.

Add all of the matter up with the antimatter and what do you have?  0

 

So if there's 100 pieces of matter in the universe, there's also -100 pieces of anti-matter.   100 + -100 = 0

[PeterMP]

Well, if the universe is not infinitely large, that's a good start to wrapping our heads around the issue.  Which also calls into question the big bang (maybe it should be called the "finite bang," or the "not that big a deal bang").  BTW, can gravity affect the speed of light?  I know light can be bent, but can it be slowed as well?  So if light is slowed or bent (must travel further), perhaps the universe is not 13.7 billion years old (since the speed of light is how its measured, right?).  Maybe its more like 13.1. billion.

 

I don't think the idea of the big bang and it being infinite are united (the name big bang actually was given to it by an opponent of it that meant it a non-complementary as a distiction of the other prevailing model where the universe was essentially constant, but not neccessarily finite).

 

The very local speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  The speed between two objects (i.e. how long does it take to travel from point A to point?) can be changed as a result of gravitational bending.

 

The age of the universe can be calculated by several different methods related to different types of radiation and the rate at which it is expanding and the amount of background cosmic radiation (which was the article that caused this thread to be bumped).

 

However, I doubt many people would argue that it is impossible that the universe is only 13.1 billion years.  I don't know what a reasonable probability distribution for the age of the universe would look like.

[Chachie]

In order for something to go "Bang," it had to be something first.

[HOF44]

In order for something to go "Bang," it had to be something first.

Also to go bang there has to be some medium for sound to travel through. No bang in a vacuum! worst name ever!!

[grhqofb5]

Maybe its all relative or something like that.  Like, the big bang was the result of nothing only because there was nothing to measure it against, so there's no answer.  And the rate of expansion is just a number on a piece of paper, since we don't really have a way to express a situation where there's no definate answer.  And its only considered "fast" because we know only of things that are slower.

[98ORAKPO98]

[98ORAKPO98]

The big bang had to have had a big banger to ignite the bang. God.

[MartinC]

The big bang had to have had a big banger to ignite the bang. God.

And who or what created God? That argument goes around in circles very quickly.

[techboy]

And who or what created God? That argument goes around in circles very quickly.

 

Not when the argument is framed properly. Correctly stated, the argument is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The traditional theistic understanding of "God" is an eternal being, an uncaused cause. 

 

Historically, the response to this argument had been to suggest that the universe itself was eternal and uncaused. These days, objectors seem to focus more on either attempting to use quantum mechanics to undermine this causality principle, or trying to demonstrate that the Big Bang was not, in fact, the beginning.

 

I find the argument to be intuitively persuasive, but beyond the basics it quickly gets bogged down in physics that is way beyond my understanding (on both sides of the argument), and/or a philosophical examination of the nature/possibility of infinity.

 

There was a brief discussion of how lousy the name "Big Bang" is, and as PeterMP alluded to, the name was never intended to be accurate or even favorable. Fred Hoyle, a very eminent physicist, also happened to be one of the Big Bang Theory's biggest opponents (apparently because he didn't like the apparent theological implications of the universe arising from nothing, actually), and in a radio interview he derisively referred to it as a "Big Bang", and the name stuck. 

[Larry]

There was a brief discussion of how lousy the name "Big Bang" is, and as PeterMP alluded to, the name was never intended to be accurate or even favorable. Fred Hoyle, a very eminent physicist, also happened to be one of the Big Bang Theory's biggest opponents (apparently because he didn't like the apparent theological implications of the universe arising from nothing, actually), and in a radio interview he derisively referred to it as a "Big Bang", and the name stuck.

Just stuck my head into the thread for the first time, but this reminds me once of a high school physics teacher lamenting the popularization of science.

He was claiming that Einstein's THEORY had been scientifically tested more times than Newton's LAWS. But that, because the press had made Relativity famous as a theory, that it would probably always be referred to, that way.

I'm also remembering something I heard on TV, DECADES ago. Walter Cronkite announced that American and Russian scientists were attending a joint conference to discuss what are popularly called black holes. He mentioned that one if the cross-cultural things happening at the conference was that the American scientists were being very careful to use the term "collapsed star", "because the popular term, translated into Russian, means exactly what you think it means".

Only time I can recall ever hearing Uncle Walter actually joke.

[pjfootballer]

I came into this thread expecting 2 things:

-Snarky comments about the show

-A smartass comment from Bang

Glad to see I wasn't let down.

You should have expected 3 things:

 

3) Gratuitous pictures of Kaley Cuoco aka Penny.