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

[Astro_Baby]

There are so many issues we dont understand or can only speculate on.  I have always been suspicious of the way theories become established 'fact; when mostly they are just a reasonable guess.

As someone said up the thread a bit theres no reason why a talking monkey should be able to understand it - that kind of fits my own thinking.  After all we are very primitive having not advanced all that much beyond a steam engine and an amplifier.

[goodricke1]

Our brain tells us we're a talking monkey, but the brain can hardly be considered an independent observer.

[ollypenrice]

Ape, gentleman, ape!

 lly

[Physicist13]

Maybe a slight clarification, from my perspective, as to how Physics and theories work...When a theory is postulated it has to a) be totally consistant with all measurements for far, it has to be able to make predictions of outcomes of measurements. the theory is tested by experimentalists making appropriate measurements to see if they are consistant. This process continues until a measurement proves to differ from prediction. In which case the theory is usuall modified (as up to that point its been fully consistant). Occasionally a new theory will replace the old one that now not only is consistant will all previous measurements but is also consistant with the latest measurement that caused the previous theory to be called into question. I think any physicist worth their salt will never say something is "fact". Some older theories are kept going as they are adequate (ie consistant with measurements to some desired accuracy) for purpose and often simpler to use. eg Newtonian mechanics is fine in most cases...no point using SR  when dealing with v<<c and only concerned with 1% accuracy. Both Newtonian and SR are known not to be fully accurate in all cases but are perfectly usable for vast majority of circumstances.

P

[Macavity]

For me much of a onetime "Joy of Science" has been sucked out by now incessant

demands that theory be totally consistent with measurement and makes predictions. 

I feel scientists are able to make a distinction between "possible" and "poop" anyway.

Cui (non) bono? I sense this is the modern battle of Evolutionary Biology and Climate

science versus their (religions and political) opponents? I sympathise. But I don't see

why other disciplines (Physics and Astronomy) should have to restrict our theories...

[andrew s]

For me much of a onetime "Joy of Science" has been sucked out by now incessant

demands that theory be totally consistent with measurement and makes predictions. 

I feel scientists are able to make a distinction between "possible" and "poop" anyway.

Cui (non) bono? I sense this is the modern battle of Evolutionary Biology and Climate

science versus their (religions and political) opponents? I sympathise. But I don't see

why other disciplines (Physics and Astronomy) should have to restrict our theories...

I am happy for any and all theories to be proposed but there has to be a test of their applicability if science is to be science and not a faith based system.

The test of applicability has to be related to what can be measured. If it is just the smell of poop or not then science dies (as it has in some societies) and stagnation and dogma will be the norm.

Real joy in science comes form both showing a theory is wrong just as much as in finding support for a theory.

An example is the issues we face is the QED theory for the Cosmological Constant i.e. it  is due to vacuum ground state energy. Its prediction is 120 orders of magnitude bigger than the measured value - the worst estimate in the history of science. Does this matter or not?

Regards Andrew

[Piero]

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

This is a very good point in science (and in life too).. Unfortunately no many realise this though! 

And the sad thing of that statement in science is that whether one likes it or not (see "I don't like your ideas") is completely irrelevant from a scientific point of view. 

Funny though that even a very intelligent (or better genius) like Einstein simply disliked quantum physics bringing as evidence that "God doesn't play dice"!

So, I guess we intrinsically introduce some sort of taste content in our research. Could this bias affect our way of investigating nature? I would say yes, as this certainly affects our open-mindedness attitude, which is required in science to progress effectively. 

[Thales]

Hi all

I went to Prof Brian Schmidt's talk about his discovery of the 'accelerating universe' - his is an interesting perspective as he ties everything that can be said to observational astronomy.  He did point out that, beyond the observable universe, there could be other universes and other big bangs.  Not only would we never get light from these to see them, but also the light we can see will disappear as the distance between stuff in the universe increases beyond the 'observable distances'.  If you had a telescope in a few trillion years from now it wouldn't do you much good (mind you I have one now and I can't see through clouds). It was refreshing to hear an astronomer as opposed to a physicist explain this (and Scmidt won a Nobel proze for it too)

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/stag/news/events/2015/11/4-stag-lecture.page

[Stub Mandrel]

A hypothesis is an educated guess at the explanation of the observed facts.

Once a hypothesis has been well tested by others, which often includes it being shown to predict things that can be tested and verified, it reaches a level of acceptance which is usually accompanied by being termed a 'theory'.

There is no formal dividing line, but the mistake many dogmatists make is to assume their is a heirarchy that runs hypothesis-theory-fact. This allows them to dismiss things as 'only a theory' (a curious choice of expression I could explore but won't for fear of transgressing forum rules).

No! there is nothing after theory - hypotheses and theories are just levels of authority that we assign to explanations of the observed facts. Facts beget hypotheses, which can be tested in the light of further facts and the robust ones become theories.

As we cannot directly observe the 'big bang', just its aftermath, it will always remain 'theoretical'. This in itself is not a statement of the level of confidence physicists have in a 'big bang' as the origin of the universe as we observe it.

[Macavity]

I am happy for any and all theories to be proposed but there has to be a test of their applicability if science is to be science and not a faith based system.

The test of applicability has to be related to what can be measured. If it is just the smell of poop or not then science dies (as it has in some societies) and stagnation and dogma will be the norm.

Real joy in science comes form both showing a theory is wrong just as much as in finding support for a theory.

An example is the issues we face is the QED theory for the Cosmological Constant i.e. it  is due to vacuum ground state energy. Its prediction is 120 orders of magnitude bigger than the measured value - the worst estimate in the history of science. Does this matter or not?

Regards Andrew

I am not advocating a "Faith based system" (Blimey, Guv), I'm merely asking for

a slightly lighter approach. Applicability? Fine! But after the recent SGL question 

re. "String Theory", I checked out some of it's critics. Some of the personal attacks

on String Protagonists defied belief. (Sneering re. "faith" issues... not science)

So String Theory hasn't "predicted" anything much? Oh stagnation! Oh dogma!

(There are "staffing issues" that might be addressed, but no "faith" conspiracy)

The problem for many (in the UK anyway) is not "faith", but lack of basic education. 

(I'm not talking worldwide). Add to that early experiences with (science) teachers

telling them they are "useless" or "will never amount to much". I hear it all the time.

I'm glad if you get joy proving / disproving a theories! These days, I am cheered

my landscape-gardener mate asked me "How's the Astrology going". It's a start!

Do scientists realise (rhetorical!) many people are scared to talk to them (us)?

I sense / hope we are mostly on the same side. Or at least I'm not "the enemy".

[andrew s]

Hi all

I went to Prof Brian Schmidt's talk about his discovery of the 'accelerating universe' - his is an interesting perspective as he ties everything that can be said to observational astronomy.  He did point out that, beyond the observable universe, there could be other universes and other big bangs.  Not only would we never get light from these to see them, but also the light we can see will disappear as the distance between stuff in the universe increases beyond the 'observable distances'.  If you had a telescope in a few trillion years from now it wouldn't do you much good (mind you I have one now and I can't see through clouds). It was refreshing to hear an astronomer as opposed to a physicist explain this (and Scmidt won a Nobel proze for it too)

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/stag/news/events/2015/11/4-stag-lecture.page

Interesting. I thought that the practical limit to the "distance" we can see back in time was the CMB i.e. the surface of last scattering as the recombination made the universe transparent. We can see the CMB now and we will see it forever but it will be more and more red shifted over time. In view of this I am not sure what was intended.

 

Have a look at this"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe.  http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808even if you don't get the maths the text is very interesting.

 

Regards Andrew

[andrew s]

I am not advocating a "Faith based system" (Blimey, Guv), I'm merely asking for

a slightly lighter approach. Applicability? Fine! But after the recent SGL question 

re. "String Theory", I checked out some of it's critics. Some of the personal attacks

on String Protagonists defied belief. (Sneering re. "faith" issues... not science)

So String Theory hasn't "predicted" anything much? Oh stagnation! Oh dogma!

(There are "staffing issues" that might be addressed, but no "faith" conspiracy)

The problem for many (in the UK anyway) is not "faith", but lack of basic education. 

(I'm not talking worldwide). Add to that early experiences with (science) teachers

telling them they are "useless" or "will never amount to much". I hear it all the time.

I'm glad if you get joy proving / disproving a theories! These days, I am cheered

my landscape-gardener mate asked me "How's the Astrology going". It's a start!

Do scientists realise (rhetorical!) many people are scared to talk to them (us)?

I sense / hope we are mostly on the same side. Or at least I'm not "the enemy".

I see no enemies I wish every one could enjoy science and the wonders of the universe.  I hope that we all can have a debate in which we may disagree but remain civil and not attack the person. 

Regards Andrew

[Paz]

Who said the universe has to make sense?

I agree entirely - we can come up with ideas and test them for their effectiveness at predicting things but in the end there is no law that says that we should be able to understand everything  and no law that says everything should make sense to us.

On the topic of something from nothing check out the Lawrence Krauss book "A Universe from Nothing" or check out videos of his lectures on youtube. Who knows whether he is ultimately right but he certainly makes things interesting!

[Macavity]

I hope that we all can have a debate in which we may disagree but remain civil and not attack the person. 

I don't think that was ever an issue. To some extent, I have learned to "roll with the punches" 

when it is assumed that I might favour something (dangerously) less than scientific here.

The subject of the thread, the "BIg Bang", brought to mind something vaguely remembered:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre (Once termed "Atrocious Physics" by Einstein?!?)

Of the top of my head, I too might have thought "Big Bang" ... Einstein, Hubble (Hoyle) etc. 

These days there are a vast number of new disciplines - With imposing-sounding names.

Despite the convenience of having a definition in terms of falsifiability and testability, there

seem to be grey areas, even complete changes of status re. what constitutes a science.

I personally find such flexibility rather in the spirit of science... A view not always shared.

[andrew s]

... but in the end there is no law that says that we should be able to understand everything  and no law that says everything should make sense to us.

While I agree there is no law, I would argue, that in any universe that allows the development of complex organisms capable of posing the question "Why the universe ...?"  then it must have a high degree of structure, regularity and stability and so in principle be understandable in mathematical terms which is a formal way of describing such structure etc. 

I would also argue that what we can understand out ways by far what we can't although I can understand others may disagree on this.

Regards Andrew

[Thales]

Interesting. I thought that the practical limit to the "distance" we can see back in time was the CMB i.e. the surface of last scattering as the recombination made the universe transparent. We can see the CMB now and we will see it forever but it will be more and more red shifted over time. In view of this I am not sure what was intended.

 

Have a look at this"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe.  http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808even if you don't get the maths the text is very interesting.

 

Regards Andrew

Hi Andrew, yes, the CMB is the observable limit.  Though he did seem to suggest that we would not always be able to see it as dark energy will win and push everything further apart (even the stuff that currently wins over dark matter by being close enough for gravity etc.).. Thanks for the paper link - looks very interesting, hope I can cope with it!

best wishes

Jeff

[nameunknown]

Insn't the CMB not so much a surface in space but a surface in time - and if the CMB radiation already fills the universe, it will always be visible but get very very cold to the point where it sinks down to longer and longer wavelengths. So you would see CMB until the temperature fell below what was detectable (or maybe ithe photons will "evaporate" from our local region - or astronomers will use them all up), but quasars could go over the superluminal horizon with everything else outside the local cluster.

P

[andrew s]

Insn't the CMB not so much a surface in space but a surface in time - and if the CMB radiation already fills the universe, it will always be visible but get very very cold to the point where it sinks down to longer and longer wavelengths. So you would see CMB until the temperature fell below what was detectable (or maybe ithe photons will "evaporate" from our local region - or astronomers will use them all up), but quasars could go over the superluminal horizon with everything else outside the local cluster.

P

In a way the CMB is not a surface/horizon at all. The CMB was emitted everywhere in all directions. What we see today is the radiation that is arriving at our location now and so looks like a sphere centered on our location. You are right the CMB will continue to cool as the universe expands. 

Strangely we can see many objects that have superluminal velocity. This does not violate special relativity - see the reference I posted before for a full explanation. Simply, and in a hand waving way, it is because light emitted from a superluminal galaxy moves away from it at a locally measured speed c. This means that it can, if it stared near enough,  get to a distance from us were the expansion rate goes sub-luminal and the light starts to approach us. 

Regards Andrew

[keiwein1]

when you talk about general relativity and singularities which come with this it becomes difficult to not to talk about things that are possible but are not observed very frequently.... an example of whihc is whit holes. just like in the case of black holes its a part of space that can not be entered and time stops once you get to the singularity becuase of the space time bending infinitely but its pretty much just the opposite of black holes but it releases matter rather than draining them in, you might think this idea is absurd because it seems to be increasing the entropy of the universe, however you cna look at black holes and the fact that they emit hawking radiation adn say that they are in fact in thermal equilibrium which can imply that white holes do exist. they have never been observed, however there are candidates. i hope this answers the second part of your explanation

[andrew s]

when you talk about general relativity and singularities which come with this it becomes difficult to not to talk about things that are possible but are not observed very frequently.... an example of whihc is whit holes. just like in the case of black holes its a part of space that can not be entered and time stops once you get to the singularity becuase of the space time bending infinitely but its pretty much just the opposite of black holes but it releases matter rather than draining them in, you might think this idea is absurd because it seems to be increasing the entropy of the universe, however you cna look at black holes and the fact that they emit hawking radiation adn say that they are in fact in thermal equilibrium which can imply that white holes do exist. they have never been observed, however there are candidates. i hope this answers the second part of your explanation

As I understand it in GR a white hole is the time reversal symmetry equivalent of a black hole. (The equations of GR are symmetric with respect to time reversal.) In a back hole you can enter but not leave and with a white hole you can leave but not enter!  

I am not aware of any observation of a potential white hole if you know of any please let me have the reference as I would like to follow it up.

As of yet Hawking Radiation has not been observed (and it is not likely to be any time soon) which is why he can't get a Nobel prize for predicting it - assuming it does indeed exist.

Care is needed with solutions to the equations of almost all physical theories (not just GR) as they predict many nonphysical solutions. Without some observations and boundary conditions to constrain them sci fi rules. Which is good fun but bad science.

Regards Andrew

[Stub Mandrel]

As of yet Hawking Radiation has not been observed (and it is not likely to be any time soon) which is why he can't get a Nobel prize for predicting it - assuming it does indeed exist.

If the LHC creates very small black holes that then wink out of existence, that would be experimental evidence for Hawking Radiation.

[andrew s]

If the LHC creates very small black holes that then wink out of existence, that would be experimental evidence for Hawking Radiation.

Yes that might well be the best bet as observing them astronomically will be very difficult. It is a big "If" though on the LHC producing black holes at all and they will have to decay quickly enough to still be within the detectors when they do so.

Regards Andrew

[keiwein1]

As I understand it in GR a white hole is the time reversal symmetry equivalent of a black hole. (The equations of GR are symmetric with respect to time reversal.) In a back hole you can enter but not leave and with a white hole you can leave but not enter!  

I am not aware of any observation of a potential white hole if you know of any please let me have the reference as I would like to follow it up.

As of yet Hawking Radiation has not been observed (and it is not likely to be any time soon) which is why he can't get a Nobel prize for predicting it - assuming it does indeed exist.

Care is needed with solutions to the equations of almost all physical theories (not just GR) as they predict many nonphysical solutions. Without some observations and boundary conditions to constrain them sci fi rules. Which is good fun but bad science.

Regards Andrew

here is the most prominent article

http://io9.com/5805202/mysterious-cosmic-explosion-might-be-first-ever-proof-of-white-holes

[keiwein1]

 GRB 060614 is what its refered to

[andrew s]

here is the most prominent article

http://io9.com/5805202/mysterious-cosmic-explosion-might-be-first-ever-proof-of-white-holes

Thanks for the heads up on this. I had missed this line of research. Doing some digging it seems that groups working on Quantum Loop Gravity  ( Carlo Rovelli Francesca Vidotto et al) have been looking at the collapse of black holes. The idea seems to be that as a black hole collapses the collapses is stopped by quantum gravity pressure and the system rebounds and energy reappears in a flash. In the proper time of the black hole this just takes a few seconds but because of the enormous gravitational field an external observer see the event in very slow motion. 

Calculation indicate that primordial black holes of the right mass could be "evaporating" about now and are a candidate for the source of very short gamma ray bursts (VSGRB). Evidence is being collected to test this idea. If it is confirmed it will be a big step forward to confirming Quantum Loop Gravity as a viable theory as well as explaining VSGRBs.

I have found a draft paper by D.B. Clinea and S. Otwinowskib that in the abstract state  "We present the state of current research of Very Short Gamma Ray Bursts (VSGRBs) from seven GRB detectors. We found that VSGRBs form distinct class of GRBs, which in our opinion, in most cases can originate from the evaporating Primordial Black Holes (PBHs)."  It is not dated but seems to be recent 2014.

It seems I was wrong about the difficulty in detecting these events if the above view is confirmed.

Regards Andrew

PS The larger the black hole the longer we would have to wait for the rebound and so we are quite safe from the BH in the center of our galaxy!