Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

About the big bang

Ray02

Recommended Posts

Ray02

Ray02

Posted
Posted

Hey guys! I was keep wondering to ask about the big bang, is it true that the big bang theory may not be the true? Is there an other theory from what and where everything started?

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply
symesie04

symesie04

Posted
Posted

The way I understand it is that there is a growing number in the science community that are casting doubt in the Big Bang theory. However despite other proposed ideas involving strings and multi universe the Big Bang theory is still by far the most plausible theory on offer. BB although containing many holes nonetheless agrees on many levels both in mathematics and visual testing so remain our most consistent and plausible offering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

Hey guys! I was keep wondering to ask about the big bang, is it true that the big bang theory may not be the true? Is there an other theory from what and where everything started?

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Have a care here. 1) The BB does not specify a location. It happened 'everywhere' but at a time when 'everywhere' was very small. It's important not to think of it as some kind of central point from which things raced away. 2) It does not state how everything started. It can only take us back to the Planck Time (10 to the minus 43 second.) Of a time earlier than that it has nothing to say.

I think the main evolution of the BB is to think of it as, perhaps, one of many BBs.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattJenko

MattJenko

Posted
Posted

Reversing the currently observed Hubble flow of space which has all the galaxies moving away from us gives the general notion of the big bang, when all that matter was concentrated in a much smaller volume. As Olly says, it is not a position, nor at time 0 per se, it is an extrapolation of the reversal of the observed flow. There is evidence to be seen of this early expansion and the state the universe was in in the form of the cosmic background radiation. Inflationary theories which help explain some of the problems with the basic idea of everything just being closer together does point to a big bang being not the start, but a rather more common occurrence of inflationary bubbles in a much wider and more complex universe. The trouble with theorizing beyond the realms of current knowledge is that it gets harder and harder to find evidence to support one theory over another, but the general premise of the universe as we tend to think of it having a hot and violent start is well accepted with evidence to support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
acey

acey

Posted
Posted

The current "standard model" of cosmology is the "lambda cold dark matter" model, which starts with the Big Bang. There are various theories that postulate conditions before the big bang - I gave a list of links in another big bang thread in this section a couple of days ago. But I didn't mention lambda-CDM so here's a link for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattJenko

MattJenko

Posted
Posted

If you want to start from some basics and run through all the way to an overview of latest cosmology, then you could do much much worse than watch the videos that make up this free coursera course on Astronomy : https://www.coursera.org/course/introastro

I can't recommend this enough for those interested in more than just an occasional website/magazine article depth level of understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ray02

Ray02

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If you want to start from some basics and run through all the way to an overview of latest cosmology, then you could do much much worse than watch the videos that make up this free coursera course on Astronomy : https://www.coursera.org/course/introastro

I can't recommend this enough for those interested in more than just an occasional website/magazine article depth level of understanding.

But how do i download or watch that course? I cant find it how? Im using an ipod touch

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ray02

Ray02

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I just downloaded and watched the videos and attempted a few of the assignments. Had no real interest in getting a certificate as such. As for tablets, sorry, watched mine on a laptop, so not sure about them.

ok thanks :) ill check them out again

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
nameunknown

nameunknown

Posted
Posted

There are plenty of other "theories" instead of the Big Bang, and even a multitude of variants on the "BBT".. One could, I suppose, theorise that the universe is a DIY job to give some purpose to a an existing eternal obsy, or pick any other "creation myth" :smiley: Of course, for the "conventional" versions it sort of boils down to BB at "one spot" and finite expanding universe or BB "everywhere" and infinite expanding universe (whatever that means). Our monkey brains evolved to smack things over the head with a club while avoiding lions (or something else which had a whole chapter on "H sap" in its cookbook) - "H0" didn't play a part at all.

So, even that we can ask the question "is it true that the big bang theory may not be the true..", is pretty damn impressive..

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EDEE

EDEE

Posted
Posted

Did the big bang create space itself and if so, please explain according to science. Space had to come before or with the big bang. From all I have read, there is not an inkling of how such was done, in the Big Bang or in any theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
saac

saac

Posted
Posted

EDEE your right in that there is not an inkling as to how such was done - the big bang theory sets out only our knowledge of the conditions and sequence that followed the big bang - and as yet some incomplete.  We haven't, nor do I suspect that we will get back to t = 0.  Not having an inkling about the "how" is the joy of science, it means there is still much more to be discovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

Is the BB or any other theory of science 'the truth?' Almost certainly not, and how would we ever know?

Don't turn to science for certainty. For certainty you need to turn to systems of belief which are not to be debated here. Science, according to one of its greatest twentieth century practitioners, is a culture of doubt. There will always be doubt in science.  Science tries to establish our best perspective on the truth based on available observation. Part of that process - a vital part - involves people disagreeing with any orthodoxy and saying so.

The Big Bang Theory could be total rubbish. So could the theory that if you whack your thumb with a lump hammer it will hurt. It all boils down to the weight of evidence (which I would, personally, consider overwhelming in the case of the lump hammer and persuasive in the case of the BB but I'm not here to persuade anyone.)

Please, if you are persuaded by my (or rather Richard Feynman's) culture of doubt theory and are tempted to whack your thumb with a lump hammer, desist. The chances of it not hurting are too small. The chances of the BB being wrong are higher. Maybe.  :grin:

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saac

saac

Posted
Posted

Science is simply a process of reducing truths, the strength of which lies in the scientific method.  A funding principle of the scientific method is that no theory is ever considered final. As technology develops, experimental technique improves and greater resolution is achieved in measurements. This leads to discovery of new evidence that may be problematic to the theory. This in turn may require a new theory or modification of the original theory. The strength of any theory, crudely how well it purports to be the "truth", is measured by how long it has persisted without significant revision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goodricke1

goodricke1

Posted
Posted

Nothing like a big bang thread to provoke the usual bout of linguistic gymnastics  :smiley: 

By definition science cannot hope to explain it's own origin, and therefore is in the same boat as every other philosophy - but I don't want to be burnt at the SGL stake, so I'll leave it there  :grin: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

Nothing like a big bang thread to provoke the usual bout of linguistic gymnastics  :smiley:

By definition science cannot hope to explain it's own origin, and therefore is in the same boat as every other philosophy - but I don't want to be burnt at the SGL stake, so I'll leave it there  :grin:

Science can't explain its own origin - that is not its provenance - but history and philosophy can do so.

I don't believe science to be in the same boat as every other philosophy because it subjects itself to rigorous self-testing against observation. It is also public. It admits anyone prepared to put up a case along scientific lines and it thrives on dissent.

People are springing up all the time and inventing philosophies on the basis of their own assertions. Their milieu is often a closed world and one in which dissent is not welcome and in which evidence plays no part. If the founding philosopher of Sect of the Golden Pineapple says, 'If you sit for three days on top of this pole while contemplating a pineapple your athlete's foot will be cured,' then that's that. It will. (Only it won't of course, which is why science is unlike the Philosophy of the Golden Pineapple.)

I like science. I think it is fundamentally different from other philosophies just as I think mathematics is, likewise, unlike any other 'language' or medium of thought. That doesn't mean I believe science can assert fundamental truths about absolute reality. It cannot even assert that absolute reality exists in any meaningful way. Science offers a unique way of refining and analysing observation. What lies behind observation, if anything does, is not what science explores.

Assertion-based philosophies don't interest me in the slightest.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andrew s

andrew s

Posted
Posted

Nothing like a big bang thread to provoke the usual bout of linguistic gymnastics  :smiley:

By definition science cannot hope to explain it's own origin, and therefore is in the same boat as every other philosophy - but I don't want to be burnt at the SGL stake, so I'll leave it there  :grin:

Not quite sure why you fell it necessary to take a passive aggressive stance as I am sure the SGL rules preclude burning at the stake in spirit if not in so many words. 

I am unclear on what you are trying to say, are you asserting science can't explain it's own methodology or possibly can't explain the origin of the universe.

If you could provide the definition of science by which the statement  "By definition science cannot hope to explain it's own origin" is true it would be clearer to me.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gnomus

gnomus

Posted
Posted

 ....

Don't turn to science for certainty. For certainty you need to turn to systems of belief which are not to be debated here. Science, according to one of its greatest twentieth century practitioners, is a culture of doubt. There will always be doubt in science.....

Olly

Except, of course, when it comes to climate change where the science, as we know, is 'settled'.

Merry Christmas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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.