Aussie researchers rewrite Big Bang theory

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

But it takes MORE faith to believe the big bang?

MORE faith?

Nobody saw it happen either. "It" supposedly happened x billion years ago, right? So, what happened before? And what exists outside the "Known" universe? Put a circle of string on the ground. Thats the Universe, right? Wrong. As soon as you place limits on size of Universe or time its been around, you de-invent "infinity".

You don't need any faith to know that space and time go on and on and on... I don't care how many people say otherwise, religulous or scientific.

Space does not "end".

And time did not "begin".

Look, I am not saying you believe either one. I am saying that if you have to decide which would require more faith, you should choose the one that doesn't have any logic to back it up.

And I understand that the math that was used to derive the theory of the big bang is difficult to understand. I don't understand it. But I know people who do, and I trust that they are not morons when they say "Yeah, the math works out. The theory is at least plausible". There is nothing that has been pointed out that makes it implausible.

The bible contains pieces that defy credibility. People coming back to life, transmutation, flying.....all manner of "miracles" that have no parallel today.

I am not trying to discredit anyones faith in this post. Faith is an important part of human life. But so is reason. don't let reason be pushed aside by faith. They have to coexist if faith is to exist at all.

reply to post by CLPrime


So, basically space itself is expanding at hight speed, not objects. Space is "stretching" with object on it, so that it LOOKS LIKE they are moving, when in fact they don't. Okay, now I see. I am thinking too much in classical, newtonian terms.
So, while space expands between two objects (at some point, as you said, 3 times c), light will still travel, between them, at c speed. That means, if I were on a futuristic space ship, and physically escape the Earth at 3xc, light from Earth will come to me so that I see Earth's clock going back in time at the rate of -3 seconds each times my clock tick 1 second, and that If I were escaping Earth because space between my ship and the Earth was expanding, I would see no offset between our two clocks?
Hey, you don't look that bad. You should see me, I got south-european blood so I tend to have dark under-eyes, like a mafioso.
And BTW, it seems that you and me are currently the only ones that actually stayed on topic in this thread...

Let me start by saying "I DON'T KNOW!!!"

See, it wasn't difficult, you try it.

Now moving on, lets try "I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE A SOLID JUDGEMENT"

Seriously though, it does get annoying seeing so many people dismissing the hard earn't understanding of nature we have developed as if someone jotted it all down on a napkin while at a pub lunch!

You cannot make a judgement on one theory or another unless at a minimum you understand the theory!, its arguements and evidence for and against. I do not pretend to understand Physics at this level, but I understand enough to know this!

I will try to take you on a short journey through the history of Physics, the understanding of how nature works, so you can see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Where what we have learnt growing up living in the Macro Universe, can be completely thrown out when thinking of the micro universe. You should get an idea how theorys are often not wrong but a better, more precise theory is developed.

I have watched endless documentaries and followed the news on Physics from various sources for years, I finally found a free course online in BASIC Pysics that didn't require a degree in Maths to understand.
I loved it, once you see the maths behind simple motion it becomes so clear, it makes sense. This is only a basic course going through Trig, Galileo, Force, Work, Power, Universal law af gravity, Simple Harmonic motion, electric charge and touched on Special theory of relativity.

Before Galileo, there was archemedies, he looked at the world and came to some conclusions, some were right. Galileo took these assumptions and tested them, He found the motion was wrong. For instance, objects do not fall at a constant rate, acceleration is applied to them. By doing lots of tests dropping objects and rolling them down slopes he found relationships. Many of these ideas developed by these two we take for granted now.
Speed = Distance / Time as in Miles per hour, k/h or m/s
accelleration = change in speed / Time as in m/s*s or m/s^2

Next came rules for objects under constant acceleration (such as an object falling to the ground)
Distance = initial speed * time + 1/2 accelleration * time ^2

These were not initially accepted until many experiments had verified the pridictions made.

Newton came up with the laws of gravity, they did not disprove Galileos work but gave a more universal application of them, these laws worked for objects in space.

Law of Gravity: the force of gravity = G × (mass #1) × (mass #2) / (distance between them)^2 and this force is directed toward each object, so it is always attractive. The term G is a universal constant of nature. If you use the units of kilograms (kg) for mass and meters (m) for distance, G = 6.672 × 10-11 m^3 /(kg sec^2).

A sky diver falling to earth will pull the earth towards him a teeny tiny amount, the above equation allows you to calculate how much!

This law worked excellantly and all its predictions were proved by experiment and measurement, at the time...

Two things became clear with better experiments and measurements. Firstly, Newtons laws were very slightly off when it came to the motion of a body orbiting another in space. Also, the speed of light was constant relative to ANYTHING (Many, many experiments were done). This may not seem profound, but if you travel at 30mph and pass another car coming towards you at 40mph, that car is travelling 40mph relative to the ground and 70mph relative to you. Light's speed never changes relative to ANYTHING, it is always the same. If another car was behind you and it turned its lights on, you and the passing car would measure it passing at exactly the same speed despite travelling at 70mph relative to each other. This bothered scientists, they mainly hoped for something to show they were looking at it wrong, they could not comprehend the implications of this!

Einstein took this at face value, if the speed of light does not change relative to anything, then what implications does this have when you work with it. This is how Einsein calculated that when you are talking about very high speeds, time and distance (space) change! This led on to gravity being a warping of spacetime (space and time are interlinked.) if you travel in a space craft at 90% lightspeed then turned round and came back 10 years later, your friend would have aged far, far more than you!! This has all been proven by experimentation over and over again, not to mention nuclear power, modern electronics, particle accellerators and GPS would not work without this knowledge. It is so strange, when they built the first GPS sattelites, they had a switch to turn relativity mode on or off because they still were not sure despite all the proof. Thats right, they had to turn it on to make the clocks tick a little faster than the ones on earth, because the satellites are travelling quite a bit faster than the clocks they are syncing with on earth.

Next came the discovery of Quantum mechanics, how the really small items move. One of the most strange predictions (the whole thing is strange to us in our macro world) is that electrons when changing orbits around an atoms nucleus, does not jump from one orbit to another (emitting or absorbing a photon). It dissapears from one orbit and appears in the other orbit (experiments agree), hmm... Einstien did not like this at all, the fact you can only work out the probability an electron is in a particular place did not gel with him. "God does not play dice"

Einstien finally found a prediction of Quantum mechanics that he thought would be its downfall, Quantum Entanglement. QE is a way of creating two similar particles at the same time and place. They are 'In Tune' with each other, once they are seperated, a change to one should cause an instantanious change in the other. This would violate the speed of light as information was exchanged so could not be true. Einstein was indeed wrong, we have many, many times prove QE is real.

What does this mean? It means those particles exchanged information without going through spacetime, it means our physical universe is just a manifestation of the Maths of what is behind it, something dimensionless, something incredibly difficult to comprehend. I would not pretend to comprehend it fully.

So back on topic, before the big bang (and during the beginning of it), there was no space, there was no time, not nothing as you need space for 'nothing'. There was something beyond our CURRENT comprehension which contained the potential energy that became the big bang. It was this energy that turned into spacetime and matter which eventually formed the universe. E = mc^2 is the relationship between energy and matter.

There is an old Physics joke:

A Theoretical Physicist has an epithany at lunch and writes some equations on the back of an envelope in 2 hours.

A Experimantal Physicist spends 2 years designing experiments to confirm the theory.

An Engineer spends 20 years refining the processes to make use of the theory in practical applications.

It is not a few old boys sitting around smoking cigars who 'agreed' upon the way the universe works, Many discoveries are hard fought, with many proofs displayed before gaining acceptance.

I hope all the time I have taken to write this have not been wasted. If it shows even a few skeptics it is OK to say "I DON'T KNOW". Even better if it encourages some to look deeper into Physics, it is mind bending but fascinating.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by CLPrime

 

So, basically space itself is expanding at hight speed, not objects. Space is "stretching" with object on it, so that it LOOKS LIKE they are moving, when in fact they don't. Okay, now I see. I am thinking too much in classical, newtonian terms.
So, while space expands between two objects (at some point, as you said, 3 times c), light will still travel, between them, at c speed.

That's exactly right.
However this...

That means, if I were on a futuristic space ship, and physically escape the Earth at 3xc, light from Earth will come to me so that I see Earth's clock going back in time at the rate of -3 seconds each times my clock tick 1 second, and that If I were escaping Earth because space between my ship and the Earth was expanding, I would see no offset between our two clocks?

...is exactly wrong. For a couple reasons.
First, traveling at 3c relative to Earth doesn't lead to an observed proper time of -3t. It leads to a complex number. Hence why traveling faster than the speed of light for any real-mass object (including that futuristic spaceship) is impossible...it leads to nonsensical results. However, your overall point is correct. Proper time dilation is observed when traveling at high speeds away from Earth.
Now, second...expansion does cause this exact same time dilation. It's not true velocity, but it is apparent motion, and that's enough to invoke time dilation. This is exactly why distant supernovae have time-dilated light curves, and it's why tired light theories can't account for it.

And BTW, it seems that you and me are currently the only ones that actually stayed on topic in this thread...

Yes...it's actually ironic that I tend to keep out of such religious detours.

reply to post by CLPrime


Okay. So, time dilatation happens, no matter if it is objects speeding off or space speeding off.
I do find the fact you do not discuss religious implications a bit ironic, but I think I do understand the why... You only have to look at what happens when someone does.
And, last thing, I sent you a couple of U2Us.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

Except for the parts about magical beings, talking snakes, fortune-telling, soothsaying, necromancy, impossibly large watercraft, a guy spending time inside of a whale's stomach with no ill effect, faith-healing, the telekinetic transubstantiation of matter, immaculate conception, horns with imbued with divine powers capable of leveling fortified stone walls, cursed apples, incendiary law-making shrubbery, humans routinely living until for several hundred years despite a lack of even rudimentary antibiotics, magical levitation, the brief cessation of gravity in the Red Sea, along with about 800 other completely ludicrous claims.

Other than that though...yeah...science once again "confirms" the bible.

So religion got it wrong. Imagine the copy that all religions read from. Its hundreds of years old. The "bible stories" that we have today were translated by men that lived 500 years ago. They though the world was flat and that you would fall off if you sailed to far. Don't let it spoil the truth, that part that is the real science and infinite too.

Wow. Where to start.

First off the guys that "translated" the bible ACTUALLY translated, edited, deleted, re-wrote, and otherwise bastardized a large set of disparate writings which recorded what used to be the oral traditions of mostly illiterate wandering nomads.

This heavy-editing party was known as the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD (not "500 years ago"). At this time there were numerous changes to these holy texts such as deleting entirely the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which featured Jesus as a child frequently using his divine powers to kill and maim other children in the neighborhood...even for just splashing him with water when playing near the pond. Likewise, the original story of Genesis which archeologists have found numerous copies of dating to the b.c. era can only today be found in the Qu'ran and, of course, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Yes...you read that correctly. The Qu'ran has the real story of Genesis in it...the Christian version as we know it did not appear in writing ANYWHERE until AFTER 325 AD.
Similarly, the First Council of Nicea also deleted the chapters of the Bible that described a Jesus who tamed dragons and blew up snakes with his mind and/or lasers coming out of his eyes. This historical event is well documented and catalogued by not only the Catholic Church...but also pretty much the whole of Europe and the Near East as well, given that all of these early Christian sects were forced to change their teachings.

We should probably also take this opportunity to note that Eratosothenes not only correctly postulated that the earth was round...he also correctly CALCULATED it's circumference within a 2% margin of error in 240BC. Likewise...explorers such as Christopher Columbus and Magellan not only were aware that the earth was round...they had maps which ACCURATELY illustrated the coasts of the America's, India, and Asia.

Of course, these maps were obtained from the Chinese in 1434 when something to the tune of 800 Chinese vessels all showed up in Florence, Italy helping to ignite the Renaissance and build a demand for things like tea and spices....just like the archeological record and written histories of both Europe and China indicate.

Genesis 1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Once again physics proves the Bible right.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Do tell, when before has physics ever proven the Bible right? Also, even the random choice of words of a research scientist and that of an antiquated book being similar, Earth=Universe is a problem.

Pretty good guess of them though to think of Earth "without form and void", although it is a little vague and doesn't exactly depict a billion-year gone stage of our planet in a volcanic and primordial state.

Maybe aliens visited and tried to communicate to the desert people in rags about the Earth's formation by drawing pretty circles in the sand and pointing in numerous directions. But it was probably a lucky guess.

This is slightly above me.
I think its unfortunate they chose water as an analogy though, that clouds the understanding with religious connotations given the subject..they should have stuck with their second analogy of pixels on a computer monitor.

I think I become a bit dense at this when they discuss the first second, because my mind immediately wants to know what happened a minute before that initial second..what could have caused this universe to go from a infinate time before of nothing to suddenly bam, matter.

Such a mystery allows for soo much speculation. It seems reasonable then that there is another force in the universe. Perhaps this quantum graphity does resolve this. Which could then mean that there are many universe bubbles in the...universe. heh

But ya, I am confused..and the more I read up on it, the more confused I get.

Anyhow, cool read, cool hypothesis (as much as I can understand it anyhow), bad initial analogy, but otherwise, always good to have new paths towards getting some answers.

Final thought: I don't know..and you don't either.

reply to post by DARREN1976

I also believe in many universe's, have you ever read up on "brane theory"?

No I haven't. But thanks, I will give it a look. Yah, on multiverses as some others call it. Like, instead of one big thing, it might be more complex than that? Many places in the Universe that are expanding and contracting, like soap bubbles or foam on an ocean maybe? Not just one big thing? I buy that too.

I don't have any proof of that, just a progression in my mind of the historical trend to associate the next big discovery as the big biggest ever. Like when they discovered the earth wasn't at the center of the Universe. Like when we discovered solar systems and realized there were many others just like ours. We hardly see them, but we know they are there. Then galaxies... whats the next biggest thing? Multiverses?

You know about fractals right? As above so below? With computers we can see the smallest looks just like the biggest. Atoms are mostly empty space. Nuclei, surrounded by little bits of stuff whizzing around. Then planetary systems like Jupiter. Then Solar systems, also empty space, have nuclei (the sun) with little bits of stuff whizzing around. Galactic centers are their own kind of nuclei surrounded by mostly empty space and (you guessed it), little bits of matter whizzing around.

Now lets see where thats leading. If we take one more step up that ladder... we collapse under the weight of a bunch of mathematicians beating us back with sticks saying no, no , you haven't learned what we know, you don't understand. Back, Back!

In the end, I think that we both agree on a huge explosion causing this universe in which we find ourselves, I just think more along the lines of a big bang rather than the Big Bang.

reply to post by milominderbinder

First off the guys that "translated" the bible ACTUALLY translated, edited, deleted, re-wrote, and otherwise bastardized a large set of disparate writings which recorded what used to be the oral traditions of mostly illiterate wandering nomads.

Totally agree. Thats what I meant. Hand me down history is just that. Also all that other history was helpful but I was not there either so still have to take it as heresy. Excepting they "knew the earth was round" bit you surmised. I agree with that too.

I think that the current paradigm of those times held the truth secret, but that most people could just look at the moon in its phases and see it was spherical. Let alone navigate the worlds oceans and tell the seasons with "observatories", etc. I am talking about the Europe of the Middle ages and the English specifically who very much bastardized the interpretations of them tales being that they were arrogant and vain about knowing everything. Thats the 500 year old misinterpretations that the modern western christian church still defends to this day (mostly).

reply to post by DJOldskool

Also, the speed of light was constant relative to ANYTHING (Many, many experiments were done)

I dunno what you call it...what about the idea that light is trapped in the sun for a long time before it works its way to the surface and "escapes"?

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Wow is all I have to say to that.

You're just seeing what you want to see.

Originally posted by ordep000
reply to post by intrptr

 

i almost agree with you man..........except steady state doesnt mean an universe in inertia, its a universe that is always in change, as colossal recycling machine of energy and matter impliing all of its dinamics...........of course time its an human measurement, and it only apllys to this universe by our point of view........i totally agree with infinity, with no beguinning and no end, being me off course a strong advocate of the steady state universe, i strongly believe in the multiverse theory................its totally inconsistent the idea of obs data that regard galaxies formed 2 bilion years after that bang, where could stars aging fit within this??? and i just call the case of red dwarfs, that could last from 10 to 20 bilion years, i never read about one entering a supernova phase or entering a nebulosity phase, these stars last even more that the so called bbang itself......and w dwarfs too, they could be everlasting if they not have an encounter..............and when james webb go upstairs??, will they obserse behind the bang particle itself..............

............
i think not............
all the best..........

Thanks for the reply and explanation of steady state. And reminder about time.

Never thought of the age of burned out stars before as conflicting with age estimates of Universe. We don't really know their age, do we? Don't much know the age of black holes either. They are at the core of every galaxy so how long does it take a black hole to form and how old are they?

Also thanks for the James Webb telescope reference. I hope I am around to see some results.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

But it takes MORE faith to believe the big bang?

MORE faith?

Nobody saw it happen either. "It" supposedly happened x billion years ago, right? So, what happened before? And what exists outside the "Known" universe? Put a circle of string on the ground. Thats the Universe, right? Wrong. As soon as you place limits on size of Universe or time its been around, you de-invent "infinity".

You don't need any faith to know that space and time go on and on and on... I don't care how many people say otherwise, religulous or scientific.

Space does not "end".

And time did not "begin".

Look, I am not saying you believe either one. I am saying that if you have to decide which would require more faith, you should choose the one that doesn't have any logic to back it up.

And I understand that the math that was used to derive the theory of the big bang is difficult to understand. I don't understand it. But I know people who do, and I trust that they are not morons when they say "Yeah, the math works out. The theory is at least plausible". There is nothing that has been pointed out that makes it implausible.

The bible contains pieces that defy credibility. People coming back to life, transmutation, flying.....all manner of "miracles" that have no parallel today.

I am not trying to discredit anyones faith in this post. Faith is an important part of human life. But so is reason. don't let reason be pushed aside by faith. They have to coexist if faith is to exist at all.

I wanted to get back to you especially and apologize for being so abrasive last night. I do that sometimes, please don't mistake me saying it was late and I was tired as an excuse. I need to work on that. I'll try to be more careful. Thanks for setting me straight.

Has anyone wondered where the photons come from in the initial stages that produced the light of the (or any) "Big Bang? Electrons have to be stripped or bumped from their valence shells to produce photons which imply atoms? But atoms didn't exist early in the initial stage right?

I don't know, this must be a way dumb question, just wondering?

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by DJOldskool

 

Also, the speed of light was constant relative to ANYTHING (Many, many experiments were done)

I dunno what you call it...what about the idea that light is trapped in the sun for a long time before it works its way to the surface and "escapes"?

The light can 'bounce' around like a pinball, being absorbed and emitted by atoms, at all times when it 'travels' between atoms it is travelling at c Any object without mass MUST travel at c. Any item with mass CANNOT reach c.

reply to post by DJOldskool

Any object without mass MUST travel at c. Any item with mass CANNOT reach c.

Thats the real trick isn't it? How can an "object" not have mass? A photon, right? Is it a particle or wave? Or wave of particles? I was going to trump your massless photon, but when I looked at my childhood proof that photons have mass, I was... corrected.

Radiometer

reply to post by intrptr
thanks man...............and of course you are gonna be around to see that wonderfull data from james webb..................w dwarfs were always used as a measurement stick for determining the age of the universe, following the bbang theory..........and that measurement were the first trap that bband advocates fell .........then a couple of months ago i discovered in some reading that red dwarfs could be even more lasting due to their slow process of fusion....and i thougth wow.......this goes even more that the w dwarfs example............then they came out with galaxies formed to 2 bilions after the bang..........the point is..........how could a galaxie be formed in 2 bilions when the hundreds of bilions of based stars take even more to form and then and age from our time point of view.............................of course we cant determine yet the age of stars, and even more galaxies, with precision, its just as a starting point from calculations..........but very far from the fact......thats one of the things that i always remind to myself...........and sometimes i think that the problem for this is time, our measurement time, it doesnt aplly to the macro of this universe...............
once more .........thank you and all the best......................

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by DARREN1976

 

I also believe in many universe's, have you ever read up on "brane theory"?

No I haven't. But thanks, I will give it a look. Yah, on multiverses as some others call it. Like, instead of one big thing, it might be more complex than that? Many places in the Universe that are expanding and contracting, like soap bubbles or foam on an ocean maybe? Not just one big thing? I buy that too.


You know about fractals right? As above so below? With computers we can see the smallest looks just like the biggest. Atoms are mostly empty space. Nuclei, surrounded by little bits of stuff whizzing around. Then planetary systems like Jupiter. Then Solar systems, also empty space, have nuclei (the sun) with little bits of stuff whizzing around. Galactic centers are their own kind of nuclei surrounded by mostly empty space and (you guessed it), little bits of matter whizzing around.

a big bang rather than the Big Bang.

Ah, here I am on familiar ground, your talking about the micrcosm universe reflecting the macrocosm!! The thought has passed through my mind many a time. where we are a biological universe on our own , each of us, contining billions of bacterial life in their own eco system inside your body, what if thats repeated on a grander scale without side our scope?