It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There's something wrong with the Big Bang Theory

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon

I think a lot of this confusion occurs because we look at our patch of space-time in isolation when everything we know tells us we live in a multiverse of space-time patches.

This is a level 1 multiverse of Max Tegmark and it's pretty self evident. This is because we know that space expanded faster than light at one point. Matter on the other hand is not uniform, therefore you're going to have patches of space-time that form these pockets.

Our universe isn't the sum of all space that expanded faster than light.

So, our local patch of space-time is still connected to all of space that expanded faster than light. Therefore, there will be anomalies that we can't explain unless we take into account these other patches of space-time.

This is because it's all still just one whole space with patches of space-time that seem isolated from the inside of those patches of space-time.

This means these patches of space-time are still entangled. Therefore entanglement doesn't just reach across our local universe but all space-time patches. So something that happens in one patch can influence what happens in another patch. So we have all of these "anomalies" that can't be explained. There's many local big bangs but this just signals the beginning of time in these local space-time patches not the beginning of space.

Space has no beginning or end but space-time patches do because of the concentration of matter in these patches.Here's an article that says something similar.

Big Bang Didn't Happen? New Theory Suggests Universe Has No Beginning, No End

www.techtimes.com...

What the article essentially says is that the events of the big bang occurred but there's no singularity because of quantum mechanics. So in isolation of our space-time patch we see our universe expanding but space itself is static and uniform.

So if you could remove matter and therefore time from all of space, you would have one unified whole of space. The presence of matter on the smalles scales causes these local big bangs to occur and then you have a multiverse of space-time patches.
edit on 30-8-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

Religious you say? Who came up with the idea, none other than a Catholic Priest. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was a Belgian Catholic Priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: introvert

This is my thinking and experience also. I think the Big Bang is a pretty good well supported theory.



Yes, that is my understanding as well. In fact, I believe Inflationary Theory and Multiverse Theory directly support the Big Bank theory, in that the Big Bang is the moment our universe "bubble" was formed, in a sea of other universe "bubbles".



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
People seem to be a bit confused as to what the Big Bang Theory is supposed to be.

It is NOT supposed to be an explanation of what caused the universe to come into being, but rather it's supposed to be a description of how the universe formed AFTER it came into being.

That is to say, the Big Bang Theory does NOT try to explain what "banged" or why, but rather how that "bang" resulted in the universe we see today.



edit on 30/8/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes, it's like our multiverse exists in its own "bubble"
Our local universe is in its own bubble.
"Empty" space is like an ocean.
Some bubbles rise faster than other bubbles, depending on their size (just like they do here on Earth).
So, some multiverses in their own "bubbles" are moving faster or slower than our universe bubble.
What's waiting at the top for us bubbles? Where is the top? What is the top, something lighter than the oceans of "empty" space?
We'll find out one day.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon

Very interesting topic. Takes some concentration to absorb what they're suggesting. New ideas, new theories, new experiments - best job in the world is to be a scientist.

Science is never a closed book. Even when evidence is presented for a particular theory, that theory can be challenged with new evidence. Science is about discovery, experiment and evidence - that's it. It's not a belief system or a religion where every research article is set in stone as suggested by some of the Creationist flame throwers.

Anyway, here's an interesting article which was published just this year. The title is self explanatory. The operative word is "CHALLENGES" - that means we don't know everything. Scientists are open minded about the unknown. Creationists have closed their book and their minds forever. Maybe we'll have a pill for that some day.

Challenges in Cosmology from the Big Bang to Dark
Energy, Dark Matter and Galaxy Formation

journals.jps.jp...

Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, Sorbonne Universit´e, UPMC Univ. Paris 6 & CNRS, UMR 7095,
98 bis Boulevard Arago, F-75014 Paris, France
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, 3701 San Martin Drive, The Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore MD 21218, USA
3BIPAC, 1 Keble Road, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK

I review the current status of Big Bang Cosmology, with emphasis on current issues in dark matter,
dark energy, and galaxy formation. These topics motivate many of the current goals of experimental
cosmology which range from targeting the nature of dark energy and dark matter to probing the
epoch of the first stars and galaxies.
KEYWORDS: cosmology, dark energy, dark matter, galaxy formation

1. Introduction

Cosmology has entered a new era in the twenty-first century. It has become a precision science.
Nevertheless, big questions remain. I will attempt to address some key issues in this talk, focussing
on these topics:

The Big Bang
• Dark Energy
• Dark Matter
• Galaxy Formation


edit on 30-8-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

All of the theories when used together, explain one another and support the Big Bang. You can also look at the individual theories that were drawn up to support the Bang, and realize that individually, these theories are fundamentally flawed, and discount multiple issues within themselves. There are countless articles that explain holes in the accepted Big Bang theory, some good, some seemingly written by a 12 year old, but they are available..... And with every single one the ending argument from the scientific crowd is "this is the accepted theory, deal with it."

www.spaceandmotion.com...

That is one (very colorful) opinion on the inconsistencies surrounding our current theory.

www.realclearscience.com...

The second link is focused on three of the major issues, setting aside the smaller "anomalies" that others focus on.

The best analogy I can come up with, is something I myself did when I was in school. Making a long story short, I was able to formulate my own order of operations and equation to solve the calculus and trig problems I had. The answers I came up with were accurate to within .5, so I'd just round up and get the correct answer. I did math this way for quite some time as my method was EXTREMELY easy, compared to the methods being taught... At least, at first. As the problems became more complicated, I had to supplement my initial formula with certain variables and additional "chicken scratch" to keep everything accurate, until the point in time came that I realized my discovered mathematical formula was completely wrong.

The moral of that story, is that you can make any calculations work with enough added hibidy hooblah. The calculations you add don't even have to make sense or follow any laws or rules, as long as you reach the desired end point; that is what the Big Bang is. It's a (somewhat too) well established idea, with an endless stream of hypotheses and conjecture to make it a functional model, even though the theories and hypotheses used don't stand up to certain data.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Bingo and a triple word score.... Damn son!!!

^5



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Georges Lemaître or not , Big bang or Big Guy in the sky it eventually all comes down to believing in a miracle. Big bang basically says there is a beginning of time. isn't that a paradox ? Begin like implies time. Also time isn't understood at all. can we measure time at all we measure time by 2 time intervals again a paradox ? Time a dimension , why is it so different from the other 3 dimensions ? But then again the Big Bang theory does keep that guys at Cern busy.... and the money flowing.

Big Brother says Believe in the Big Bang





posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
You can plug holes in math just as easy as plugging holes in a novel story. What if it's something else completely? We'll either find out the answer when we're face to face with God or we'll never find out for the rest of eternity. It'll always be a guess backed up by math.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: Cinnamon
Golly gee-willackers...... Science might be wrong?
Whoa....


Science seems to do a better job than incantations, live sacrifices, and ju-ju beads.



So, you're saying that I simply MUST be someone that would use incantations, live sacrifices, and or ju-ju beads because of what I had to say?



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: introvert

This is my thinking and experience also. I think the Big Bang is a pretty good well supported theory.



Supported sure but right? I can't possibly believe that.

At the moment before the big bang, you had every bit of matter that exists in the entire universe, stuffed into a point no bigger than an atom. All of the billions and billions of suns worth of mass and matter that's stuffed into EACH black hole, all the stars, all the planets, every single thing in the entire universe was stuffed into this point... and there is only one of these. Where it came from, who knows... Time didn't exist until this point in ... nothing, went off. Yet, there would have had to have been a measure of time as to how long this point existed before it went off or how this singularity came to exist in the first place.

So then the point in 'nothing' gets to a busting point... why? how? What would have caused it to go off? Why did it go off? Was it getting too full? from what?

Anyways.. it goes off and pushes all the matter/mass/energy from it's guts to create the universe.

...from a point that's smaller than an atom.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

I agree that these theories have flaws, but I do think the current theories that are generally accepted are the best we can do until certain gaps are filled.

The biggest gap we have to fill is to figure out gravity. That is why I look forward to the building of the International Linear Collider. I think it will give us more opportunities to further research that last piece in the puzzle that will bring it all together in order to create the Theory of Everything.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck

Supported sure but right? I can't possibly believe that.

At the moment before the big bang, you had every bit of matter that exists in the entire universe, stuffed into a point no bigger than an atom. All of the billions and billions of suns worth of mass and matter that's stuffed into EACH black hole, all the stars, all the planets, every single thing in the entire universe was stuffed into this point... and there is only one of these. Where it came from, who knows... Time didn't exist until this point in ... nothing, went off. Yet, there would have had to have been a measure of time as to how long this point existed before it went off or how this singularity came to exist in the first place.

So then the point in 'nothing' gets to a busting point... why? how? What would have caused it to go off? Why did it go off? Was it getting too full? from what?

Anyways.. it goes off and pushes all the matter/mass/energy from it's guts to create the universe.

...from a point that's smaller than an atom.


You got it all wrong. Before the Big Bang, there was NO matter stuffed into a tiny space. In fact, there was no matter AT ALL. In inflation theory, time did not start with the Big Bang. It started with the inflation epoch, when the Higgs field underwent a phase change accompanying expansion of space-time that released energy as the Big Bang, an event that occured not at a singularity (the old-fashioned cosmological model) but shortly after time had began. This energy then materialised into particles (the Big Bang). The trouble with some of you is that you read about cosmology many years ago and have not updated your knowledge with further developments.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I always thought that too.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Like how sheldon doesnt know physics but is supposed to be a smart guy
edit on 30-8-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


The further away an object is, the faster it should be receeding but that is NOT what we observe.


This says otherwise.
Or point me please to a page that supports your notion.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
Honestly, everything is wrong with the Big Bang theory.

A singularity had to happen which follows the laws of physics, and then virtually every law had to broken immediately following that for the Big Bang to happen, which then created the laws of physics (talk about circular logic).

There's more wrong with the Big Bang Hypothesis (as it should be correctly referred to) than there is right about it...

Hell, we don't even fully understand gravity. We have one test that calculates mass based on gravitational pull, and it's based on multiple assumptions, one being that electricity has no effect on gravity, which we are unable to test either way.

If you ask me, the Big Bang is just as much religious as Creationism



Gravity is the strange one. Electromagnetism is easy - electrons, electron pairs, spin and valence shells. Light is easy, again electrons; electrons jumping energy state. But we know gravity isn't really much to do with electrons, but more protons and neutrons. It isn't even the quarks themselves, but those exchange particles that create a "force" like the way electrons generate an "electromagnetic force". But a magnetic field follows the inverse cubed law, while gravity follows the inverse squared law. Strong and weak nuclear forces follow even high powers and don't go beyond the atomic nucleus. The quarks only account for 20% of the mass of a protons. It's the gluon field making the other 80%

So gravity is like an atomic nucleus force that somehow leaks out. Gamma rays are emitted by an atomic nucleus. So it would seem you would need use that level of energy to interact with an atomic nucleus directly. Now magnetic and gravitational fields extend for millions of miles around large astronomical objects as the space-time continuum allows them to travel through without impedance. Just the pure mathematical distance law.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon

"There's something wrong with the Big Bang Theory"

Aye it's called expansion, but don't worry once we understand how and what dark matter and energy are and how they relate to the rest of our 5% of the universe i imagine all will become clear, or dark as the case may be.

Begining and end are such linear concepts, space-time is probably so much more interesting aka infinite diversity in infinite combination, factor in multi-verse/holographic principle(simulation of a simulation of a simulation) and the sky is not even the limit.


edit on 30-8-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Bazinga!


Bazinga is a genus of rhizostome jellyfish with only one known species, Bazinga rieki, found off the central eastern coast of Australia.

Wikipedia.

Why does that not surprise me coming from an engineer?!!



 


Gravity. A PITA for sure.

It so well not known that they invented... uh, theorized,... dark matter and dark energy to account for why galaxies do not rip themselves apart. Then you hit the wall between Newtonian physics and quantum physics.

As stated earlier, the Big Bang Theory (non-Sheldon version) is not complete. The theory has some problems. The idea was modified such that it had to include a period of expansion. But that created another problem. The particles being created are so hot that the light was not escaping for a billion years! Even as this post started, the answer to that question was being put forth...

phys.org, Aug. 30, 2017 - Researchers propose how the universe became filled with light.

Basically, black holes spin matter up so much that it shoots out X-rays, cosmic rays, and ultra-violet rays that eventually poked through the dark veil. That is why we can detect the cosmic background radiation.

Even now, they are theorizing how heavy elements like gold and uranium are created because a star cannot create them even in supernovas. There is big hoopla going on about two neutron stars that may have been observed merging. That would make the collision way YUGER than the LHC.

ATS, Space Exploration: We may have detected a new source of gravitational waves.

We (as a species), are still figuring this out!

The real question to ask is: Why doesn't Bernadette have her own spin off show!




top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join