It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Big Bang - Where's the hole?

page: 5
7
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:12 PM

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by jiggerj
I agree, only those dots have to be set in a circle around where the singularity burst. Now if you blow up the balloon you will see the dots moving away from where the singularity originated.

No, the dots are more or less uniform in their arrangement (or at least they started off that way). In the real world those "dots" (matter) also have gravity, so they tend to clump up over time in spots, but on average they are all still expanding away from each other.

You could also think of it as squeezing a sponge as tightly as you possibly can to represent all the matter compressed into one single point. Then let go of the sponge and it will expand outwards in all directions. The structure of the sponge is the matter getting pushed outwards and taking up more space, but it's all still the same amount of matter and from inside the sponge every piece of that sponge/matter seems to be expanding away from every other piece.
edit on 7/5/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)

I find it hard to conceptualize a sponge or (another analogy I've heard) a loaf of raisin bread. The sponge is one material and it is one mass. The universe is made up of non-connected material (planets, galaxies...). Neither works like the other. However, if you crammed a bunch of marble-sized sponges into a container, and then smashed the container open, the sponges would fly way from the container.

As for the raisin bread analogy, if the bread dough was inflating evenly between each raisin, then no raisin would ever collide with another raisin. Yet, as Imafungi pointed out, galaxies are colliding with one another.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:18 PM

You're essentially arguing for the steady state universe, as favoured by Fred Hoyle and others.

No. I'm arguing against arbitrary spatial expansion.

While I have my own array of theories, I've not put them forward in this thread. Like I said - we know far too little to be allowing ourselves to speak under the guise of certainty.

If the universe is infinite, and not expanding, gravity would have caused all galaxies to merge an infinite time ago.

And why do you say this?

You presume far too many things here.

First - that the universe has a beginning. Second, that it is infinite. Third, that light moves along a minimally obstructed path across millions of light years.

The universe doesn't have to have a beginning. It only needs a present state and a past and future are automatically possible. It is merely our human chronological perception that drives us to demand an answer on origins.

Further - not all matter had to come from the same event or the same 'location.' The distribution of galactic superclusters and the filament structure observed is difficult for modern expansion theories to explain. Asymmetry is only a problem when considering expansion from a single point at one time. If you consider the injection of energy along asymmetrical 'wave-fronts' at varying times - then the problem doesn't exist.

There's also the potential for our universe to be quasi-neutral - gravitational potential existing much like electrical charges in a plasma (not to give any ammo to the electric universe people - though some of their ideas are intriguing).

Which means the universe must be expanding (or even contracting) - but not static.

No, it really doesn't.

There's an old fable about a king and a fish bowl. His advisers get caught up in debate about what happens to the mass of a fish when you put it in a bowl of water (where does it go - it just disappears). The king finally ordered that an experiment be done where a bowl would be weighed and the fish placed in it.

As you know - the debate was silly and not necessary, because there was no problem of disappearing mass. They merely created that problem out of their lack of understanding.

I apply the same philosophy to our debate over the big bang. A lot of the issues are likely non-issues because none of it will end up 'holding water' - so to speak.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:19 PM
Interestingly, there may be another Big Bang one day .

Once all the stars and galaxies have ripped apart, black holes will gobble up the left-overs. Then the black holes will all eat eachother until there's only one winner. Eventually, we're left with a single singularity, as we were 13.6 billion years ago...

... Bang.

Comforting to know that perhaps we can all enjoy this debate again, a very, very, long time from now...

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:26 PM

Lol. Sure, call yourself "rational" and "logical" all you want. Doesn't make it so. I call your beliefs a religion, because it requires faith. Your deity is called "Chance" and "Time" and with them, all things are possible. They have brought us to where we are today, according to your very own religion.

What evidence is there, exactly, of the Big Bang?

As far as I know, there are dozens and dozens of issues with the entire theory that any logical and rational person would realize, and since you claim you are such a thinker, this shouldn't be a problem for you.

For one, you should know that static universe models fit observational data better than the expanding universe models, as they match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but ONLY with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. This essentially falsifies the theory. Hell, even if the discrepancies could be explained (though, that does require a problem for you), Occam's razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters.

Secondly, our most distant galaxies visible (using the Hubble Deep Field) reveal insufficient evidence/proof of evolution, with some of them having higher Red shifts (z=6-7) than the highest Red Shift QSOs. Essentially, with the Big Bang theory, all stars/quasars/galaxies/celestial bodies should be "primitive", meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. Except, latest evidence suggests lots of metal are found in the (supposedly) earliest QSOs, there's a full review of that here.

I don't really care about your answer actually, I'm sure it will be some more nonsense regarding something some dude said in the Bible, right after God conjures up a few rainbows.

Okay?

Originally posted by jiggerj
And your deductive reasoning is, a god did it all? I say this with a giggle: Are you insane?

The creation needs a creator. Would you laugh at someone who claims a watchmaker made their watch, calling them insane? Based off your logic, I suppose you would. And that, friend, would make you mentally unstable, as most people would agree. At least, those who have a working 3 lb brain.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:27 PM

I dont know how long in lengths of time,,,, but at all times every point of the galaxy is spinning,,, and each point is spinning fast..... how long do our exposures take including the distance the light travels and the distance of the galaxies we are viewing..,,. www.flickr.com...

that is probably one or two second exposures,,,,,, the exposures they take are probably years long...

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Aim64C

Now inflate that balloon and all those little dots will start to move away from each other as the balloon expands.

Taking that as the analogy...

What is "breathing" into the universe?

It would be roughly analogous to dark energy, the force that's causing the Universe to expand, but really you are taking the analogy a bit too far. I was mainly trying to illustrate how when space expands, all of the matter in that space will all move away from all of the other matter. The surface of the balloon is like a two-dimensional universe, though (ignore the space inside the balloon it only confuses the issue). You just have to apply the same idea to three dimensions to make sense of it in our Universe.

What is the "rubber" between the dots on the balloon? What is stretching, aside from arbitrary numbers and concepts?

The rubber is space.

Same number of dots, same amount of matter, but it gets farther apart as the balloon/Universe gets bigger.

I find this suspect.

Quantum mechanics doesn't play too well with this idea that space can be arbitrarily inflated. It can be argued that quantized states -create- space (and even further argued through the concept of energy-information equivalence and the holographic principle).

Stuff like the holographic principle and other aspects of quantum physics like particles behaving differently when they are or aren't being observed and more recently computer code being found in the equations that the cutting edge physicists are currently using to describe the Universe (youtu.be...), all of it mostly just freaks me out. Basically, the idea that the Universe might operate more like a computer simulation than a real place is very disconcerting and I don't pretend to truly fathom all of it, even if that's what some things seem to keep saying in physics. I want to be real, not a simulation.
edit on 7/5/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:37 PM

Equations of motion given by General Relativity, which has passed a large number of experimental tests now even though it is conceptually pretty radical.

There's a few "Yeah, but..."s attached here.

Space is defined as the propagation of light over time.

Since this is the mechanism by which all known forces propagate (with relation to the speed of light) - it doesn't mater if you make the squares on the chess board bigger - the number of squares each piece can move in a turn doesn't change - and the mechanics fail to change as well.

These aren't arbitrary numbers and concepts---the whole kibosh has concrete experimental & observational consequences.

The term you are looking for is "derived."

The concept of space is derived from the concept of time and the concept of energy/state transfer.

Space itself can be squeezed and pushed and we have laws of physics which appear to govern how it works.

This is how the theory interprets the experimental data.

I disagree. I reject the interpretation of space-time. Time is a convenient construct relevant to our experience - but ultimately not a material thing. Space is a derived unit, but has a more direct relationship with energy states and can be said to be as real as those energy states.

You can't make space expand without going through quantum mechanics first. It doesn't work in reverse.

Of course - all of the "squeezing and stretching" of space can easily be attributed to an emergent property of Planck constants. As state exchanges within a system increase, the amount of energy being shared increases. This forces a shift in the relative frequency of state exchanges in the system. Thus why just about everything has mass and yet everything is influenced by it. That's a horribly simplified presentation of the idea - but I don't exactly have a 30 page thesis prepared for it, either.

The issue is that we don't disagree on the experimental results. We disagree on the interpretation.

Relativity was a largely Newtonian take on the world. This is reflected in the interpretation of the experiments done to support the theory. But the world has changed - the information we have has changed - and it's time for new interpretations to be considered.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:50 PM

It would be roughly analogous to dark energy, the force that's causing the Universe to expand, but really you are taking the analogy a bit too far.

What?

What is dark energy?

.... "Aim... it's dark energy because we don't know what it is. We can't find it."

Wait... you have no idea what it is - can't even detect it... but persist on telling me that it exists.

Do not pass go, do not collect \$200.

I was mainly trying to illustrate how when space expands, all of the matter in that space will all move away from all of the other matter. The surface of the balloon is like a two-dimensional universe, though (ignore the space inside the balloon it only confuses the issue). You just have to apply the same idea to three dimensions to make sense of it in our Universe.

It's not a problem of concept. I was into this stuff in grade school, and can visualize the concept of arbitrary 3d expansion perfectly.

What I have a problem with is the whole idea that you can take space and magically make it larger by manipulating equations and justifying it with a magical source of energy that cannot be found.

All because we observe red shift every where we look.

There's a lot of presumptions involved in this theory... when the more simple theory is that a property of light makes it attenuate over large amounts of space (a theory very difficult to test in the ridiculously short confines of our solar system).

The rubber is space.

What is space?

How does it expand? What field... what particle... what ... thing does dark energy act upon?

That's what I'm getting at. We don't even have a good definition of space... let alone can we begin to define how it would go about expanding.

Basically, the idea that the Universe might operate more like a computer simulation than a real place is very disconcerting and I don't pretend to truly fathom all of it, even if that's what some things seem to keep saying in physics. I want to be real, not a simulation.

What is real?

Socrates pondered over this considerably, coming to the conclusion: "I think, therefor I am." You choose to do with your experience what you will. If you treat it as real (and those around you as real) then it is as good as real.

In my opinion - you are not sentient until you've encountered the question of reality and come out of it with an answer that replaces the discomfort with understanding that you can't know but choose to accept or reject what is before you.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:11 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
could it be because the images we view of galaxies are like long exposure photos,,,, where as the galaxy is actually spinning very vast?

Galaxies take a very long time to rotate. Our sun will take about a quarter of a billion years to make one orbit around our galaxy, for instance. The photos we take of galaxies with Hubble today are going to look essentially identical to the photos we take of those same galaxies 10,000 years from now. They are not spinning very fast.

The problem has to do more with HOW galaxies are spinning, which is pretty uniform in terms of velocity whether you are near the center or near the edge. We expected them to spin more like the solar system does, or the Jovian or Saturn moon systems (which are just like mini-solar systems). Dark matter would account for the discrepancy between what we expected to see and what is actually being observed. These articles explain the problem better than I ever could:

cosmology.berkeley.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by jiggerj
I find it hard to conceptualize a sponge or (another analogy I've heard) a loaf of raisin bread. The sponge is one material and it is one mass. The universe is made up of non-connected material (planets, galaxies...).

The raisins inside the loaf of raisin bread are separate masses from each other. The dough/bread/sponge is equivalent to space. Forget about the mass of the dough/bread/sponge and imagine that only as the medium of space which expands.

As for the raisin bread analogy, if the bread dough was inflating evenly between each raisin, then no raisin would ever collide with another raisin. Yet, as Imafungi pointed out, galaxies are colliding with one another.

Some galaxies do collide because of gravity. Gravity will still pull galaxies that are close to each other together because the space between them isn't expanding fast enough to pull them apart, not yet at least (eventually it will because the rate of expansion of the Universe is increasing). But for now that's not the case.so on a localized level, yes, galaxies do collide. But take the aggregate of all the galaxies we can observe and measure the directions and speed they are moving and the vast majority of them are moving away from us.

The dots on the balloon and raisins in the dough don't have significant gravity to overcome the expansion of the balloon and bread, so this aspect of nature isn't being modeled with these thought experiments. They are meant to be illustrative of how things look in the aggregate.
edit on 7/5/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Aim64C
There's a lot of presumptions involved in this theory... when the more simple theory is that a property of light makes it attenuate over large amounts of space (a theory very difficult to test in the ridiculously short confines of our solar system).

Is there a theory of a property of light to account for this? I've never heard of one, but that doesn't mean someone hasn't put one forth. I'd like a link or three to information about this if there is one.

What else could red-shift all those galaxies besides the Doppler effect?

What is space?

How does it expand? What field... what particle... what ... thing does dark energy act upon?

That's what I'm getting at. We don't even have a good definition of space... let alone can we begin to define how it would go about expanding.

Yes, these things are still mysterious and no I don't have an answer for you, nobody does. Science doesn't have all the answers yet, we are still chipping away at those things. We are basing current ideas and theories based on what we can observe. Observations, as we understand them, say this is what is happening out there. It's all well and good to say that we're misreading the observations, and that may be the case, but just saying "light works differently over a billion light years than it does over a hundred light years" is not good enough unless you've got some math to support it. Show me the theories if they are out there, I'd be interested to read about them.

What is real?

Socrates pondered over this considerably, coming to the conclusion: "I think, therefor I am." You choose to do with your experience what you will. If you treat it as real (and those around you as real) then it is as good as real.

Actually, that was Descartes, not Socrates. I think you are confusing what Descartes said with Socrates axiom that 'the only thing he really knew was that he knew nothing' (paraphrasing).

In my opinion - you are not sentient until you've encountered the question of reality and come out of it with an answer that replaces the discomfort with understanding that you can't know but choose to accept or reject what is before you.

Are you saying I'm not sentient because these observations and theories bother me? I accept that is what is being observed and what some of the current math is describing, but that doesn't mean it can't make me queasy. It sometimes makes the people who are actually doing this theoretical work queasy, too.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Atzil321

The discovery in the article you linked to will actually add to our knowledge of the early universe, and help us understand how the first galaxies formed. How did you come to the conclusion that it somehow disproves the big bang theory itself?

I didn't come to that conclusion - and it doesn't - at least, not on its own. It is, however, a single piece of a bigger puzzle. The kind of gravitational lensing that has been observed, which is detailed in the article, shouldn't exist at all if current theories on the formulation of the universe are correct.

This doesn't mean that it's beyond explanation, or beyond incorporation into big bang theory. It DOES, however, sit neatly as yet another piece of evidence suggesting that the theory itself is incapable of explaining the origin of the universe.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:02 PM

Interesting question... S&F!

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:11 AM

We are physically incapable of locating the true center of the universe, because we can not observe the entire universe. How is one to decipher where we are in the puzzle with out first seeing all the other pieces. The universe can only be estimated and even at that it's just a guess.. Until, we become capable of interstellar travel, or trans-universal travel, we may never truly know.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Lionhearte
People still believe in the Big Bang? It's completely outdated, totally impossible, illogical, non scientifical and nonsensical and is only even feasible as a mathematical equation on a piece of paper, if hardly. Yet if you ask a believer of this dying faith they will ask you to ignore the "small problem" of something coming out from nothing, and look at the rest of the theory, which is also has some problems.. and more problems. Then more problems arise with the theory.

People just look at the so-called "proof" via interpretations of observational data that do not relate to reality. Microwaves MUST mean that everything was once in one spot that exploded/expanded? Red Shifts MUST indicate greater velocity the older the light is from ever farther objects away from Earth?

Where are our free thinkers?

You guys can believe whatever you want, and state whatever opinion you'd like. My opinion is this - Stop making false assumptions and interpretations and use your deductive reasoning abilities to understand that this never has nor ever will be proven as a viable theory.

Whoa! I finally caught my breath! That was a great laugh! Thank you! I don't think I've EVER seen irony so thick!

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Ilyich

We are physically incapable of locating the true center of the universe, because we can not observe the entire universe. How is one to decipher where we are in the puzzle with out first seeing all the other pieces. The universe can only be estimated and even at that it's just a guess.. Until, we become capable of interstellar travel, or trans-universal travel, we may never truly know.

EXACTLY!!! The estimation that the Big Bang occurred came about only by what we can see in the known part of the universe. And, what we see could be 100 trillionth the size of the universe, so just because we can mentally reverse all these galaxies to a point, who can prove that this point is the origin of the universe and not just small bang WITHIN the universe, or a black hole that blew up?

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by jiggerj
shouldn't there be a void where the Big Bang actually occurred?

Yep, its where I live.

VoidHawk

I didn't realize you lived in Kansas...

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Lol. Sure, call yourself "rational" and "logical" all you want. Doesn't make it so. I call your beliefs a religion, because it requires faith. Your deity is called "Chance" and "Time" and with them, all things are possible. They have brought us to where we are today, according to your very own religion.

What evidence is there, exactly, of the Big Bang?

As far as I know, there are dozens and dozens of issues with the entire theory that any logical and rational person would realize, and since you claim you are such a thinker, this shouldn't be a problem for you.

For one, you should know that static universe models fit observational data better than the expanding universe models, as they match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but ONLY with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. This essentially falsifies the theory. Hell, even if the discrepancies could be explained (though, that does require a problem for you), Occam's razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters.

Secondly, our most distant galaxies visible (using the Hubble Deep Field) reveal insufficient evidence/proof of evolution, with some of them having higher Red shifts (z=6-7) than the highest Red Shift QSOs. Essentially, with the Big Bang theory, all stars/quasars/galaxies/celestial bodies should be "primitive", meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. Except, latest evidence suggests lots of metal are found in the (supposedly) earliest QSOs, there's a full review of that here.

I don't really care about your answer actually, I'm sure it will be some more nonsense regarding something some dude said in the Bible, right after God conjures up a few rainbows.

Okay?

Originally posted by jiggerj
And your deductive reasoning is, a god did it all? I say this with a giggle: Are you insane?

The creation needs a creator. Would you laugh at someone who claims a watchmaker made their watch, calling them insane? Based off your logic, I suppose you would. And that, friend, would make you mentally unstable, as most people would agree. At least, those who have a working 3 lb brain.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)

Why could of your god not of created the big bang?

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:59 AM

The raisins inside the loaf of raisin bread are separate masses from each other. The dough/bread/sponge is equivalent to space. Forget about the mass of the dough/bread/sponge and imagine that only as the medium of space which expands.

The Big Bang released a set amount of material. In other words, whatever was contained in the singularity is now out and no more material is forthcoming.

So, let's give the dough in raisin bread a set amount: One loaf's worth. Now, allow that loaf to stretch until it's paper thin. Let it keep going, constantly pulling the dough from the center. A hole would appear.

Now, the question is: Is the dark energy pushing everything in different directions, or is it pushing everything away, further and further out?

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Mapkar

Theoretically bangs we think of leave holes, but I think (in my limited knowledge of astrophysics) the big bang was the "source" of all material. That mans it'd be more like dropping a water balloon onto the floor and looking at the puddle rather than a bullet in glass. For the bullet analogue to work there would have to be something for the big bang's initial point to smack and shatter. But remember the big bang says all things came from it, so there's nothing to shatter. I think the water balloon would yield the more similar result, an expanding puddle and a solid center.

Interesting, but if the point of the big bang was the source of all material, a water ballon if you will, then all of that material would have had to be distributed equally in the finite or that bang would perhaps still be creating? Im a little confused by that.

The sun, the planets and all space objects do the same thing, though. They collect all materials of the universe and expand, explode, turn to so named black holes, ect. If everything was moving away from each other so rapidly, then it seems by it's own propulsion since the center of the galaxy releases some form of force at each end, or perhaps they could be the "tops center of gravity" around an ever bigger central force and by what we see of it, we're still fitting in the universal orbit.

It's an interesting thought, but I myself cannot buy into the big bang without more meat.

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:58 AM

The Big Bang Theory is full of holes.

top topics

7