Jump to content

Narrowband

The big bang theory, and why I think its fundamentally flawed.


Recommended Posts

Bear in mind Im a bit thick so maybe its my way of thinkin that is flawed. Anyway I am looking for answer from people with more brain power than me.

Why is it the big bang, space, time and everything just "appeared from nothing", yet now that we have all this stuff, we dont see more big bangs go off for no apparent reason. 

What Im asking is whatever triggered the big bang, why doesnt it trigger more of them? The "something from nothing" is the issue I struggle with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Simple answer is no one knows however much brain power they have. The fact is that the BB theory in the framework of General Relativity is the best theory we have at explaining the observations of, for example, the CMB and numerous others. It, unfortunately, also leaves us with a model where some of the stuff it predicts (Dark Matter and Dark Energy) make up the vast majority of the universe (and we don't know what they are) and the bit we do know -normal matter -make up about 4%.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said the universe has to make sense? ;) We're just talking monkeys after all. Neither an eternal universe or one with a beginning and end make any sense to me.

Something can come from nothing because even now vacuum has energy, as demonstrated by the Casimir Effect. It's theorised that in the past vacuum contained a lot more energy and some event triggered a release of energy, leading to a period of inflation and the Big Bang. We don't know if this could happen again, but if it did we'd be obliterated.

We know an awful lot about our local universe but we really don't understand why it exists. Please bear in mind that the Big Bang is just a theory of the evolution of our universe (from very early times, when it was small and hot), not a creation theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think ive got any more brain power, but the bb theory is a theory it dosnt mean its true, its just we havnt thought of anything else that fits the bill as well the other one is that the universe is finenite, that is if you keep going in one direction for long enoth you end up in the same place a bit like going around the earth.  clear skys  charl. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good question and one I think where the answer is linked to entropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropyand if you think about it, for there to be 'nothing' it only takes one thing for it to become 'something' whereas if there's lot's of somethings already, it's not possible for there to be nothing at that point.

At which point I start edging towards the cliff of ignorance if indeed I was not already there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another big bang would be the the start of another universe with whatever properties are relevant and correct to it - not necessarily the same as the ones we have and totally seperate to our little universe.

No problem with it appearing from "nothing" except it likey came from something that is not observable or detectable to us. Think the latest idea is a quantum field or similar. Trouble is they presently seem to be using the same term "inflation" for what is to me 2 seperate ideas, or phases.

Also the big bang refers to the idea that this universe expanded from a point, you may be asking where the point came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If another big bang went off outside of our 13-14 billion old universe?  Firstly I wonder if there are many of these currently in existence, however I expect their isolation is so vast that the chances of an 'outer peremeter' of one meeting up and overlapping with another is so small, impossible or just not immediately detectable (i.e. A Black Hole).  Also the medium (if thats the right word) that the big bang expanded into may well behave in ways that is completely incomprehensible, just like much of quantum theory. 

My brain always explodes with this stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Various models of the big bang which help explain certain aspects of the universe which we can actually observe, point towards an accelerated phase early in the big bang expansion process. Further theorising along these lines leads towards theories that many places in the wider universe (beyond what we see as out observable universe) are where big bangs as such are happening, and we are inside one of them. This means that the big bang is not an isolated incident as such, but a common occurrence in the wider universe, but those other big bangs are spread out in this wider universe separated by non-inflated areas, which puts them beyond our grasp in our own inflated area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBT created everything (far as i know). It created our universe. I dont think you can have a universe inside of a universe. I suppose it could be possible to have micro universes inside of a universe. Do micro universe even exist?. Have i just came up with a new theory?. I dont know.

If a universe existed inside of another maybe they would share the same space but different time, so as not to exist at the same place with each other?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think ive got any more brain power, but the bb theory is a theory it dosnt mean its true, its just we havnt thought of anything else that fits the bill as well the other one is that the universe is finenite, that is if you keep going in one direction for long enoth you end up in the same place a bit like going around the earth.  clear skys  charl. 

Charl, we don't know if the universe is finite or infinite. The best data we have together with the standard cosmological model (BB, GR etc.) indicate it is very close to being geometrically flat. That is parallel lines don't meet or diverge from one another - Euclidean geometry. Then topologically it could then be spatially like a flat sheet of paper or like a torus. In the first case it would be infinite and in the second finite. If it were finite it could in principle show up in the CMB and the Plank satellite data might reveal it but, it has not done so yet as far as I know.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there have been others... just outside of our own.

Some theories propose that during the inflationary phase of the BB 10^500 additional universes were created. Seems a bit of over kill to me especially as the number of Baryons (normal matter particles) in our Universe is estimated to be tiny 10^80.

Regards Andrew

PS ^ means to the power of. E.g. 10^2 = 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew s- that why its just a theory, now untill we can travel and observe the whole universe we just dont know. im looking forward to the data we get from plank but i think that it will open a whole new can of worms.  clear skys  charl.

I hope by "just a theory" you are not dismissing it too lightly Charl. It is a dam good theory by many measures. I doubt we will never be able to do as you propose and observe all. 

In your view what can be better than a scientifically testable theory? Yes it may be wrong yes but that is what science is about.

Also all observation is theory dependent. Clearly the Sun orbits the earth - I see it do it every day when I am not clouded out ... !

Regards Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew i would never take somebody life work lightly, it just that not so long ago some of the greatest minds in the world thought the earth was flat  and sol went round the earth, im saying as we evolve so do our understanding and what we belive today may not be the same in a few hundred years.  charl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that "we may well find it all to be wrong" is a very useful viewpoint. To me, it kinda says "well we don't really know so lets not put too much into it". It's all well and good to have another hypothesis and to work towards proving it to be the correct one, but simply saying that the model we have now might be wrong isn't very helpful. If people are not convinced the bb is the way to go, the onus should be on them to prove it and even better, come up with a more solid theory that stands up to scrutiny better then all others. 

As long as we've got half the scientific communitee trying to prove an arguement, and the other half trying to disprove it (by putting forth a better one) then we will inevitably move forward.

To say "I don't like your ideas" and to give no evidence against it is a sure way to stagnate.

These are of course my thoughts and as always, make of them what you will. You have every right to either agree with me or to be wrong....your choice :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear in mind Im a bit thick so maybe its my way of thinkin that is flawed. Anyway I am looking for answer from people with more brain power than me.

Why is it the big bang, space, time and everything just "appeared from nothing", yet now that we have all this stuff, we dont see more big bangs go off for no apparent reason. 

What Im asking is whatever triggered the big bang, why doesnt it trigger more of them? The "something from nothing" is the issue I struggle with.

The BB does not say this. It traces time back to 10^-43 second (The Planck Time) and then says it knows no more.

'Nothing' is an interesting idea but is something science does not find exists in nature.  If you take a vacuum particles will appear in it. For an excellent read on the curious subject of nothing, try The Book of Nothing by John Barrow. It is an excellent read.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BB does not say this. It traces time back to 10^-43 second (The Planck Time) and then says it knows no more.

'Nothing' is an interesting idea but is something science does not find exists in nature.  If you take a vacuum particles will appear in it. For an excellent read on the curious subject of nothing, try The Book of Nothing by John Barrow. It is an excellent read.

Olly

John's book is good! Particles coming in and out of existance in vacuum is very real and measurable effect. See Lamb shift for example.

P

It is interesting to note that Quantum Field Theories are formulated within classical Space Time (normally Special Relativity) so while the interpretation of the so called vacuum fluctuations differ they are fluctuations within normal space time. So QFT "vacuum fluctuation" can't be a model for an event that creates space time.

While many have expectations that General Relativity breaks down at the Plank Length we have no reason the believe QFTs are valid either (not least because they are formulated within a continuous "classical" space time). In reality we have no data about what does or doesn't happen at the Plank Length or anything within many orders of magnitude of it. Ideas about Quantum Foam etc. are pure speculation.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true! 

It is interesting to note that Quantum Field Theories are formulated within classical Space Time (normally Special Relativity) so while the interpretation of the so called vacuum fluctuations differ they are fluctuations within normal space time. So QFT "vacuum fluctuation" can't be a model for an event that creates space time.

While many have expectations that General Relativity breaks down at the Plank Length we have no reason the believe QFTs are valid either (not least because they are formulated within a continuous "classical" space time). In reality we have no data about what does or doesn't happen at the Plank Length or anything within many orders of magnitude of it. Ideas about Quantum Foam etc. are pure speculation.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.