Hello All

Do we put all our eggs in the Big Bang Theory or do we investigate another theory such as the reycling process?  

I moved this post to the Cosmology forum away from the general discussion forum.  

I feel I should point out a couple things here.
First let me say that your question is a valid question which merits responsive and open-minded discussion, however,  there are currently discussions pertaining to the BB Theory and other possibilities already in progress here in the Cosmology forum. 

Secondly, and most important,  the title of this has already been used more than once in the past with less than favorable results.
There are members from all over the world of all ages and walks of life. Everyone has their own beliefs and convictions. Most are attracted to these forums for one purpose. That's because this web site is dedicated to the amateur astronomer, and the sciences of astronomy. 
Without going into detail I will refer you to the forum policies concerning religious and political discussions within these forums.  If you have not already read that policy, which is posted in the Off Topic area, discussion that are Contain and or are Religiously and or Politically charged are prohibited. 
Unfortunately, the title in and of itself has in the past invited less than civil contention between some of the members here. Discussions pertaining to the origins of the universe can get fervid and out of hand very quick.
If this thread or any other shows any signs of turning that direction, the appropriate action(s) in accordance with current policies will have to be taken.

Have A Nice ___________ 

 If thermodynamics is true then all the atoms that exist today have always existed in various forms throughout the infinite past and will throughout the infinite future. Atoms do not care how old we think the universe is or how it got there. If the past is truly infinite then all the atoms in the universe would have had time to Shake hands via gravity and would "know" about each other.

If time began with the BB. Then what event in the future could cause time to cease to exist? 

Perhaps atoms produce gravity by choice so they can get together to form different things or perhaps they become the victims of gravity and simple clump beyond there individual control. No one has been proven correct as identifying the actual "cause" of gravity. It can only be passively measured. Same as the BB.

Given that we have no idea how the Big Bang could have happened, what we believe we are seeing "out there" leads us to believe that it "must" have happened. The funny thing about universal observations is that they put Earth at the center of the universe. Experts deny that we could be at the center but refuse to believe that anyone at what we reckon the edge of the universe would be able to see anything beyond that point. Silly isn't it?

Perhaps the universe does recycle. A message from the stars on how to conduct business here? 

BQ 

brooksquest:

 If thermodynamics is true then all the atoms that exist today have always existed in various forms throughout the infinite past and will throughout the infinite future. Atoms do not care how old we think the universe is or how it got there. If the past is truly infinite then all the atoms in the universe would have had time to Shake hands via gravity and would "know" about each other.

This is not an accurate representation of BBT: In the earliest epochs there were no atoms at all. Once the universe had cooled sufficiently for atoms to form, only the lightest three or four elements existed in atomic form until stars formed. Once star formed, limited stellar nucleosynthesis shifted the proportions of the lightest elements via nuclear fusion (e.g., as time went on, hydrogen was converted to helium, and so on, so the relative proportions began to shift). And once stars got old enough to progress beyond helium fusion and/or exploded in supernovae, heavier elements formed and were distributed throughout their local regions of the universe (which went along with the general cosmological expansion).

If time began with the BB. Then what event in the future could cause time to cease to exist? 

Depends on whether you define time as an entity independent of physical entropy. So, for example, if the ultimate fate of the universe is continued expansion to ultimate entropical heat death, then at some point change would cease and there would be no observance of time.

Perhaps atoms produce gravity by choice so they can get together to form different things or perhaps they become the victims of gravity and simple clump beyond there individual control. No one has been proven correct as identifying the actual "cause" of gravity. It can only be passively measured. Same as the BB.

If by "passively measured" you mean simply observed, then okay. But many of the tenets of BBT are based on working knowledge of experimental nuclear physics (independently verified many times over).

 It was not intended to accurately represent the BBT. It was an imaginative look at the possibility that atoms might have always been here without the BB leading to their eventual birthdays.

BQ 

Harry Costas:

Hello All

Do we put all our eggs in the Big Bang Theory or do we investigate another theory such as the reycling process?  

 

No, we do not put all our eggs in one basket. However, physicists and cosmologists have been working for decades on unifying theories, so the trend is toward standard models. Note the plural. The BBT is such a model and is well-supported by observational evidence.

There are several other hypothetical models, some of which include all or parts of the BBT but go beyond it (backward in time) and -- while entirely speculative and thus far untestable -- are active areas of research by many scientists. Some of those scientists likewise support the standard model we call the BBT.

Doubtless, there are some who have their heads in the sand. But that does not mean there are not credible creative and imaginative minds at work in cosmology as well. No worries.

Hello All

I'm not trying to push Ideas onto others.

I have read many papers on the BBT and yet all the evidence is not concrete.

I will come back to the BBT and its support later.

Until than have a look at these links

 Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

International Workshop on
Redshift Mechanisms in
Astrophysics and Cosmology
(Clonakilty-Cork, Ireland, May 15-18, 2006)
http://redshift.vif.com/NewsWire/BrassTacksRelease1.pdf

First Crisis In Cosmology Conference
CCC-I
Moncao, Portugal June 23-25
http://www.cosmology.info/press/2005...I_followup.pdf

The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference
Mon¸c˜ao, Portugal, June 23–25 2005
Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of Southern Africa
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...5/PP-03-03.PDF


Introduction to Cosmology: Problems of the Big bang Theory
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics...blems_Big_Bang



Current Controversies
Science Stifled by Dogma
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...es/bigbang.htm

 The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

At the end of the day, I want to know that what ever theory we are putting our eggs in is close to the one that is supported by science. I do not like my eggs broken.

In my short readings of M theory I think I have come to believe that what we know as our universe, may never have not exsisted, or perhaps never had an explicit begining or start.  That perhaps energy and matter always exsisted but just in different forms.  I have read that our universe may have gone through phase changes, similar to how H20 Can be liquid, solid or gas in form as we percieve it. 

 So perhaps the values of such things like the fundamental four forces or the postulated higgs boson  are variable over infinity.

But then comes into play the question of time, what is time, has it always been as we percieve it now?  Perhaps what we know as time is only what is described in the man written laws of thermodynamics and in particular entropy.  Maybe there is no time as we know it but only an interval of infinity where matter and energy always exsisted but because of yet some unknown quantity the values of forces are variable.

And what of Dark energy and Dark matter?  M theory proves to be more interesting every second, some places I have read think dark energy is implicit outward pressure caused by quantum vaccum flucturations, making me wonder if even now as I type this the values of all things known are constant over any interval.  How can we possibly explain the vast majority of energy/matter in the universe being reserved for these unknown ghostly postulations..  We are missing something, something big.  I can only hope M theory has it.

And on the Big ban theory, I truely dislike the name, as a bang implies some short of chemical interaction causing what we know to be an explosion of shorts, but it was really an extremely rapid expansion of space itself..

Who knows, it just seems to me that everything is a sea of interconnected and related values..

The BBT is currently the standard model because:

• It fits the data better than any other theory we have.
• It has survived all its significant tests.
• It has the support of the vast majority of cosmologists.

Is it perfect? No.

Are there/will there be challenges? Yes.

In your metaphor, is it broken? Not even cracked.

We're each entitled to our opinions here. Are we cosmologists? No. Can some of us reproduce the data used in support of the BBT? A very few of us here can, to at least a limited extent. This doesn't make us particularly well-qualified to challenge, or to support, the theory in general.

Still, it's interesting and to at least some of our members it's educational to discuss it and various challenges to it. And it can be a great deal of fun.

The major reason I respond to posts about it here is to clarify points that are made either erroneously or perhaps a bit carelessly about the tenets of the BBT and their interpretations and supporting evidence. The thing that most often causes me heartburn with these discussions is statements that would lead those unfamiliar with its underpinnings to conclude that the BBT is in disfavor among cosmologists.

It certainly has critics among that community, and some of them are vocal. But in the aggregate they represent a very small percentage of working cosmologists and astrophysicists and very, very few of them are in favor of abandoning it in toto.

One point I'd like to make in support of the BBT here is that the theory of the origin of the universe is a very, very big deal. It is, essentially, the Big Question: Where did we come from and where are we going? So of course it is going to generate discussion. It is very unlikely to be a simple answer, too, so there will be ample room for challenge and debate.

As you can tell from some of the references supplied in the post above, though some of the challenges seem to be coming "from left field", perhaps equally as many arise because of new observational technology and methods that create as many problems as they resolve!

That is the nature of modern scientific inquiry ...

Fear not. If this is your goal:

At the end of the day, I want to know that what ever theory we are putting our eggs in is close to the one that is supported by science. I do not like my eggs broken.

... then the BBT is the one that is supported by most researchers ...

Hello Ste

You said

 In my short readings of M theory I think I have come to believe that what we know as our universe, may never have not exsisted, or perhaps never had an explicit begining or start.  That perhaps energy and matter always exsisted but just in different forms.  I have read that our universe may have gone through phase changes, similar to how H20 Can be liquid, solid or gas in form as we percieve it. 

Stars and galaxies do go through their phases and stages of evolution. Matter to energy to matter cycling.

Hello All

Chip said:

The BBT is currently the standard model because:

• It fits the data better than any other theory we have.
• It has survived all its significant tests.
• It has the support of the vast majority of cosmologists.

Is it perfect? No.

What data? and Why did it survive the tests? and Why has it majority of support? These are questions that need to be aswered by the people who funded the theory. People were told, the data fit the theory and that it has been tested time and time again. This created a movement and people did not question the data supplied.

Are there/will there be challenges? Yes.

Changes occur through science, and at this moment, people are questioning the data and the observations.

In your metaphor, is it broken? Not even cracked.

Its up to you to further research the current information.

We're each entitled to our opinions here. Are we cosmologists? No. Can some of us reproduce the data used in support of the BBT? A very few of us here can, to at least a limited extent. This doesn't make us particularly well-qualified to challenge, or to support, the theory in general.

Yes, you are right. So! read up on it.

Still, it's interesting and to at least some of our members it's educational to discuss it and various challenges to it. And it can be a great deal of fun.

It is alot of fun and mind opening. Educational to be updated with information.

The major reason I respond to posts about it here is to clarify points that are made either erroneously or perhaps a bit carelessly about the tenets of the BBT and their interpretations and supporting evidence. The thing that most often causes me heartburn with these discussions is statements that would lead those unfamiliar with its underpinnings to conclude that the BBT is in disfavor among cosmologists.

Most cosmologists until the last year did consider the big Bang as the standard model and in some groups is still considered as the standard mode.

It certainly has critics among that community, and some of them are vocal. But in the aggregate they represent a very small percentage of working cosmologists and astrophysicists and very, very few of them are in favor of abandoning it in to.

Science takes priority over majority. As for the small percentage, I think you better look again.

One point I'd like to make in support of the BBT here is that the theory of the origin of the universe is a very, very big deal. It is, essentially, the Big Question: Where did we come from and where are we going? So of course it is going to generate discussion. It is very unlikely to be a simple answer, too, so there will be ample room for challenge and debate.

Do you really understand the Big Bang Theory, or just support it for the love of it.

As you can tell from some of the references supplied in the post above, though some of the challenges seem to be coming "from left field", perhaps equally as many arise because of new observational technology and methods that create as many problems as they resolve!

Rather than me supplying hundreds of links to support alternative theories, maybe you should read up on the topic.

That is the nature of modern scientific inquiry ...

Fear not. If this is your goal:

At the end of the day, I want to know that what ever theory we are putting our eggs in is close to the one that is supported by science. I do not like my eggs broken.

... then the BBT is the one that is supported by most researchers ...

 I want to see a theory supported by science and observations.

If you wish to discuss data that supports the Big Bang please post them

Harry:

As you can tell by reading my posts on the subject of the BBT, I do trot out the data in response to specific points being made. I don't intend to publish a treatise on the subject here, or anywhere else.

I have about 6 linear feet (a shelf and a half) of books about BBT and cosmology. So, I have read quite a bit about the subject. The first book I read about it was Gamow's and if memory serves that was in 1953. I have been studying it off and on ever since. I am familiar with it, despite the fact that my interests in astronomy are not primarily in cosmology.

I do also regularly read articles published in scientific journals, particularly when they challenge parts of the standard model. One of the nice things about astronomy today compared to when I started out is that the Internet makes this much easier to do.

As to precisely how many or what percentage of cosmologists support the standard model and BBT, it is certainly the majority today. What happened in the past year to change it? While it is true there is no "vote" taken formally to establish the BB as working theory, it also is true that if the majority of cosmologists opposed it then it would not be taken as established theory -- it would be a working hypothesis. It is well past that stage and today's challenges do not seem to threaten it in toto.

I have said here many times, including the post you referenced, the BBT is not perfect. My reply in that post was to correct the interpretation that it is seriously broken. It is not. Sure, there are challenges.

But here's a bigger point: there is no serious challenger overall. That is, there is no proposed theory that already has passed its own challenges to reach the status of Theory. There are some interesting hypotheses. Many people like string theory and M or brane theory. Neither is theory: they're hypotheses. They are not (perhaps not yet) testable. A theory must be.

The BBT is a working theory. Not by fiat, but by having survived various challenges and adopting data acquired by new technologies and methods and evolving to its current form. It has been questioned -- and seriously -- many times. You allude to current questions and challenges, as well.

That's how science works ... not by the likes of you and me sitting around discussing it.

The good that comes of folks like us discussing it is that those who haven't read as much about it might learn something from the discourse.

The BBT does not need or require another theory thats more 'correct" for it to be overall, "wrong".

The only reason BBT survives is because no one has any better idea's. This again, does not make make it a correct theory.

Let be carefully not to assume that because a theory has no rivals ready to overtake it, that its correct in any shape or form.

DATA and OBSERVATION are the only litmus tests.

So, maybe someone should post ONE Challenge to BBT and another post the Solution.

Then at the end we can determine for ourselves if the BBT takes too many liberties with imaginary data for it to be correct.

Test,

Test4echo:

So, maybe someone should post ONE Challenge to BBT and another post the Solution.

This could be an interesting and educational exercise.

Then at the end we can determine for ourselves if the BBT takes too many liberties with imaginary data for it to be correct.

 

Test,

But let's not delude ourselves into thinking we are going to answer this question on these forums.  For my money, the BBT is the best we've got for the time being. 

Test4echo:

The BBT does not need or require another theory thats more 'correct" for it to be overall, "wrong".

That is correct. But the BBT is part of the Standard Model because it fits the data better than all its rivals combined. There are no significant, testable rivals. You could say the BBT is wrong except that it fits the preponderance of the data, not just one or two bits of it. You could say that a rival hypothesis is correct if it fits one or two bits of the data, but that doesn't make it a theory of the same order as the BBT.

The only reason BBT survives is because no one has any better idea's. This again, does not make make it a correct theory.

That is partly correct. The first sentence is wrong: the BBT survives as a theory because its multiple hypotheses have been tested repeatedly against observational data and found to be correct. The second sentence is correct: if a better idea comes along (and fits the data better, or answers correctly more of the challenges to BBT) then it could displace the BBT.

Let be carefully not to assume that because a theory has no rivals ready to overtake it, that its correct in any shape or form.

Yes. I do not make that assumption. However, so much of the BBT survives testing that it is assumed to be correct. That is how hypotheses become Theory. A theory is accepted by working scientists as the standard for moving forward. So, once again, find a bit or two here or there to complain about and fine: you work it out and see what needs amending or adding to the model. It's not until you find a lot of those, or one or two MAJOR tenets that are incorrect that you consider scrapping the theory itself. That is simply not the case with the BBT today.

DATA and OBSERVATION are the only litmus tests.

So, maybe someone should post ONE Challenge to BBT and another post the Solution.

Then at the end we can determine for ourselves if the BBT takes too many liberties with imaginary data for it to be correct.

In principle, that's correct. it happens quite often here. In fact it happened just a few days ago with the tired light idea (which has passed zero of its challenges).

However, WE (here in these Forum threads) are not the ones to do that in any formal way. Do we have the means to do it? We can offer thought experiments. We can point out what researchers are doing. A few of us may be able to participate in actual research at some small level. But let's not make the mistake of assuming that our imaginations and resources are on the same level as those of current researchers.

Are our conclusions as valid as those of working cosmologists? As opinions, yes. As science, no. While this does not mean that members here are incapable of doing science, I am saying that we can't expect that our opinions or musings here are relevant to the scientific community.

Astronomy Magazine (among others) does a good job of highlighting recent and relevant research. Focus topics and special issues get even deeper into discussions of cosmology.

But I'm not aware of a working cosmologist or astrophysicist signed in as a member of the Discussion Forum here ...

As I said before, what we can do here (and in the time I've been a member I have seen many shining examples of this from our members) is offer coherent and informative discussions about the issues.

Harry Costas:  Time is a touchy subject, how do we even define it when the ideas and methods we use to define it relative to something else have not always been static, the fundamental four forces have not always been as they are now.

Hello All

The mistake in history made time and time again is that the minute "MAN" thinks he or she knows, thats the minute research and learning stops.

So!!!!!!!! we have the standard model. Do we stop researching and learning and going where no man has gone before, do we stretch our wings and fly higher in fear of falling.

Look at history, time and time again it happens.

So! take the time and question.

Keep reading

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/index.html

 ==================================================== 

 If the Big Bang cannot stand up to the winds of science, stop trying to protect it from falling, by adding ad hoc props.

A few things I'd add (below). This is all certainly food for thought.

Harry Costas:

Hello All

The mistake in history made time and time again is that the minute "MAN" thinks he or she knows, thats the minute research and learning stops.

So!!!!!!!! we have the standard model. Do we stop researching and learning and going where no man has gone before, do we stretch our wings and fly higher in fear of falling.

Look at history, time and time again it happens.

So! take the time and question.

Keep reading

Yes, I agree. See the notes about Halton Arp, below.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/index.html

QUOTE

It is known that many astronomical observations cannot be explained by means of the ordinary Doppler shift interpretation. The mere examination of a recent catalog of objects having very large redshifts shows that among 109 quasi-stellar objects for which both absorption and emission lines could be measured, the value of the absorption redshift of a given object is always different from the one measured in emission for the same object. It is clear that such results cannot be explained as being due solely to a Doppler redshift. A new mechanism must be looked for, in order to explain those inconsistent redshifts and many other observations related to the “redshift controversy”.