Forums

I am begining to doubt string theory.  The application of so much brain power for so long has produced so little.  There is no observational evidence for all the extra dimensions it requires, but there is observational evidence for dark matter and dark energy.

The current expanding universe which is based on applying the Doppler shift at the scale of the viewable Universe and the interpretation of the polarized CMB data.

I believe that the total gravity of the Universe including what we cannot see beyond our horizon along with unseen intergalactic Molecular Hydrogen clouds, may be responsible for the red shift.

Even Hubble thought Something may be skewing his results, The Pioneer Anomaly tell us that something is wrong, also the discovery of a highly magnetized Cloud that we are currently plowing through that physicists say should not exist.

That would do away with dark energy, we have a long way to go with figuring out Gravity. dark matter can also go out the window with some new revelations on  Gravity.

Don't ask me to explain, it is an ATM  hypothesis, which in this forum will get you chastised, that kind of idea requires a mountain of evidence, but I do have my reasons.

 im going to go with the big bang. i dont doubt that something like it happened. but the way the current BBT describes it is too far out there for me. there was nothing at all, then a singularity popped into existence. i havent seen anything that really helps me believe that it happened like that. i personally believe in the big bounce, though how that actually got started, i couldn't tell you. just my

I am worried about the fate of the Sun. It acts abnormally nowadays, but astronomers still believe it will shine smoothly at least for a several billion years!

Astronomind

I am worried about the fate of the Sun. It acts abnormally nowadays, but astronomers still believe it will shine smoothly at least for a several billion years!

What is so abnormal about it nowadays as compared to how it acted in the past?

What is considered normal solar activity, and, what is considered abnormal solar activity? 

The Dynamics of our Sun, or most any star for that matter, are somewhat complicated.  Our Sun goes through cycles where the intensity may vary considerably and has done so for billions of years. So what is normal? 

Now to get back on topic.

The big bang at this moment in time is the widely accepted theory throughout much of the scientific community. However, there are others that deserve more scrutiny IMHO.   Which is wrong? we're still in the process of learning.  

That's the point. Nobody knows what is "normal activity". If the solar minimum can last for 70 years (in 17th century), who can assure our Sun won't erupt or start to pulse?

Well since quantum mechanics and relativity completely break down at certain events, such as black holes and at the Big Bang singularity, I believe that string theory goes a long way toward bridging the gaps.  It's a little exotic to think of extra dimensions and a possibly doughnut-shaped universe but like many well known physicists have said, it's either completely wrong or completely correct.

The dark energy theory would make sense if supersymmetry were able to be proven. 

I firmly believe, that the current confusion about the theories for explaining the origin and evolution of the universe is due to lack of philosophical clarity i.e. understanding, what such things as knowledge and verifiable truth is about. What do we really mean by the term "time"? What do we really mean by the term "space"? What do we really mean by the term "dimension"? What do we really mean by the term "energy"? What do we really mean by the term "temperature"? What do we really mean by the term "mass"? What do we really mean by the teerm "force"? (just to mention a few of the most commonly used terms for describing the universe).  

Firstly: A model never represents the truth as such.

A model comprising some number of dimensions and various constants, variable units, curvature or straightness of space, time-relativity related to various theoretically thought supernatural "observers" and so on is merely an arbitrary means of describing and quantifying observations in a methodical way. A model may as such be either useless or useful depending on what sort of problems you wish to handle by means of the model. Therefore it is for instance problably incorrect to say, that Einsteins special and general theory of relativity is either correct or incorrect. Whether they make sense in certain contexts or are more or less just generally accepoted conventions, I am myself unable to judge. If so then they may very well be called sensible enough. Most recognized scientists seem quite happy with them. What they don't do however is making it any easier for me understand anything about the universe. That is for sure. I have a rather strong suspicion, that these theories are to some extent an unclear entanglement of modelbuilding and scientific factfinding, maybe even with a number of self-proving tautologies involved. 

Secondly: All models, that are consistent within themselves, and not directly in conflict with observable facts, are theoretically equally valid, athough some may well be far easier to handle logically and mathematically than other models.

Thirdly: No matter how great a mathematical genius (i.e. equation and formulae equilibrist) you are, it is quite impossible to guess what the universe is like and how it behaves through mere speculation, whereas you on the other hand very well may be able to create the most beautiful abstract models in which to fit possible NOT PREDICTED real observations. 

Whar it means in the end is, that models of the universe ought to constructed and refined with only these qualities in mind:

1. Is it practical?

2. Is it consistent within itself (i.e. does not lead to absurd conclusions, such as self contradictions and/or the proposed existence of weird unobservable objects - or GODs for that matter - in order to work)?

3. Is  it beautiful (i.e. crystal clear also for people outside of relatively isolated self-promoting groups of specialists/conneseurs)?

All this is not to say, that less ambitious partial and only approximately accurate models are useless, quite the contrary. For instance it is in everyday life most practical to treat the surface of the earth as being flat and motionless. The only important thing is to remember, that any model in itself only represents an arbitrary choice, and only one out of many possible options.

Whenever a new theory or refinement of an existing one is put forward to the public, it should always clearly be clearly stated, within which model it is being described and verified by means of independant observations.   

Just to elaborate a little bit on my previous entry, here is an idea, that might have some useful implications (I honestly don't know, but it somehow appeals to me):

Please beware: This is a suggestion for a model only. Im not pretending, that it in any way represents a valid astrophysical theory at all!

If we regard the universe as a "classic" 3-dimensiuonal cartesian coordinate system, then such a system is characterized by the ease with which distances can be calculated accurately and unmistakeably by means of subtracting distance components from the x, y and z-axes for the two points in space in question and then squaring them and finding the square root of the resulting sum. (d = sqr((x1-x0)2 + (y1-y0)2 + (z1-z0)2))). In such a system however certain anomalities regarding the progression of light, that can be observed in the real world, present grave difficulties. 

But now, if we instead regard the universe as a similar system but now with unequally disrtributed densities (with regards to the progression of light) and with the three directional components not necessarily always being perpendicular in relation to each other. You may imagine this as some sort of lumpy porridge as compared to the perfectly smooth and even catesian soup of coordinates.

What now, if in addition we imagine that the lumps in the porridge are not necessarily stationary, but can move dynamically, become more or less dense etc. under the influence of gravity or other elementary forces in the universe? High density would then mean +scaling and low density would mean -scaling?

The overall apparent expansion of the universe could then - maybe - be considered to be an effect of a special case of a new form of transitional movement, namely SCALING in addition to the already well known "newtonian" forms of movement TRANSLATION and ROTATION. If the system (overall) is contracting (say with a certain halving ratio - as opposed to fixed speed), then the objects in it will appear to move away from each other with acellerating speed the further away from each other, which incidentally is exactly what has been observed with regard to distant galaxies! The model is also theoretically able to accomodates apparent curvature of space near heavy objects, such as the sun.   

Well. I don't know really, whether this idea for a partial model of the universe actually makes any sense or not. I'm more than willing to let it go immediately, if anyone can explain to me, that it is ridiculous and possibly also why that is. 

P.S. 

By the way: I don't like the ideas of "dark matter" and "dark energy" either, but that is besides the point.

As far as I have read recently, the latest discoveries suggest that distant galaxies are not moving away from us with speeds proportional to their distance from us. Instead their speeds are accelerating (the course of which is commonly attributed to the existence of "dark" energy, as I understand).

This must then mean, that a graph depicting the dependancy between speed and distance for distant galaxies will not be a straght line but rather a curved one with growng steepness, thus making the traditional simple way of calculating the age of the universe by means of Hubbles constant more or less obsolete (as far as I can see at least). A consequence of this must if 'm not mistaken then be, that the universe is in fact much older, than previously assumed (dependng on the actual shape of the dependancy curve).

This again could maybe help to solve the apparent paradoxes with regards to the ages of various astronomical objects, which seem to be surprisingly old as compared to the presently assumed age of the whole universe as such. 

The more I read about the Big Bang theory, the less I believe in it. Being an agnostic I don't think, anything real can come out of nothing for no reason, and it is furthermore absurd to think, that in "the beginning" shortly after the so called "singularity", it all started with, all physical laws were inapplicable, thus making it possible for all the billions of billions of billions of present day existing elementary particles and sub-particles to exist side by side within a tiny tiny volume, whereafter some sort of explosion took place, and the known psysical laws were finally put into place, thus creating the enormous distances, we find in the universe today containing billions of galaxies pretty evenly spread around in it.

My suspicion is in fact (although I honestly don't know) that the main reason, why this theory is so widely accepted in the scientific world, is that it fits very well with the religious concept of a creator, who resides in another dimension, that we cannot through science know anything about, but only approach through some sort of mystical revelation. Many serious scientists are by the way - contrary to common belief - deeply religious people (I believe even Einstein was). Being a sceptic agnostic I am not (although it maybe sometimes would have been nice not to be one). 

On the other hand. What about the so called "Steady State" theory? Frankly I don't buy this theory at either. This theory requires, that, as the universe expands new matter is continuously being created to fill out the emptyness, that would otherwise be the result of the expansion. Still, as nothing can come out of nothing (that is my belief at least) this requires the existence of a mystical other dimension from which demons or angels of some sort, that we can know nothing about, can perform miracles (i.e. supernatural events) upon the real world.  

But what is the alterenative? Well. Just consider this thought, at least as a thought experiment, mainly to demonstrate, that other theories might be possible alternatives:

Suppose, that the universe is a sort of harmonious system i.e. a swinging system like a swinging membrane producing a tone in an instrument or like a pendulum swinging back and forth in a grandfather clock or in a metronome, and suppose, that there is an invisible medium in which electromagnetic waves travels, that can be more or less dense. Then suppose, that this density can vary regularly with certain time intervals, thus creating different speeds for propagation of light waves. Given this, the apparent expansion of the universe (which can be observed now) could be attrributed to a temporary condensation of this medium, whereas the opposite concentration, that might follow after some time, could be attributed to a symmetric inflation of this medium.

According to this "theory", the universe has always existed, although a large portion of its objects may be are outside of our "discoverability"-horizon. There has never been a beginning, and there will never be an end of time either. There is limit to, how dense, the universe can be, and there is a limit to, how dispersed it can be. 

I am a little skeptical of string theory. It's a beautiful theory but I find myself holding it at arms length.

Which current widely-accepted theory do you think is probably wrong?

All of them.