my big bang theory

[SpaceCadet]

Back again and after all these turtles and elephants I come back to what I mentioned before. That Elephant in the room. The one I never see mentioned in any of the science in the scientific press. Chaos theory and fractal geometry.

It is evident that the self organisation into strikingly similar patterns of infinite complexity that pervades everything we care to look at has to be important. How can it not be? We know that the fronds on a fern obey the same maths as a vast arm in a spiral galaxy. This is clearly something fundamental. Yet I never see it weighed in and explained by all these standard model proponents. How did the initial conditions in big bang theory lead to this bizzare order in randomness? What does it tell us about the fundamental laws and does it help shape them? Is it a 'signature' of the quantum field? I do not know. Maybe I have freakily missed any such papers describing such studies on my daily trawld through the scientific press. Like I say, there is an elephant in the room,.......

[blinkity-blonk]

Firstly, I haven't read all the posts to this as I get so far then my head hurts so apologies if Im repeating anyone.

I like this theory, mainly because I was thinking something very similar the other day when I saw this ---> All available sizes | National Geographic: The Universe Map | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

you pretty much need 'eyefinity' set up to look at this without having to scroll around - i don't have it so it took a while! Anyway, it gives you an idea of the scale of things we can observe.

In the top right corner/end of the time scale its all webby/stringy like that expanded foam you can get... or an Aero chocolate bar! I reckon if you zoom out even further then quite possibly it would look like a nebula or another galaxy type structure and it keeps on going and going, bigger and bigger galaxies with bigger and bigger stars.

For all we know in the grand scheme of things our galaxy could be equivalent to a proton or a quark. I don't think there's an upper limit to how big things can get. Imagine a lifeform living on a quark thinking 'I can see to the edge of the molecule Im in - its huge, it cant possibly get any bigger outside that!'

Also in all this space how can we conclude that we're the only ones in it? there must be some other life.

[boboco]

I am not a physicist, but I wont let that stop me ;-)

It seems to me that theoretical physics is getting way off track and is constantly inventing new, ever more bizarre, theories to explain away anomalies in the previous set of bizarre theories, and far from Elephants or Turtles its "made up concepts all the way down and well keep making them up because its more fun that doing real work".

To take it back to something I do know (software architecture) when you have to fix bugs in previous bugs which were already fixes on earlier bugs then its time answer some fundamental questions about whether the basic architecture is correct.

[Neo_uk]

thanks for all the comments i have really enjoyed reading all the theories and i now know what "turtles" means !.

the reason i arrived at the conclusion i did was just based on observations that have been made on astronomical objects throughout the universe and also on the basis that everything has a opposite not so much thinking out of the box (i don't think any way) but just thinking simple and straight forward.

but i do like to ponder the wondrous possibilities of time and space and what mankind may achieve in the future.

chris

p.s .... the other thing is posting in this section is keeping me out of the for sale section !!!!

[acey]

1. Q. what is the universe expanding in to ?

A. the infinitely huge universe.

2. Q. why can we only trace the big bang back to .45 of a seconds after the big bang.

A. because it was a unstable hyper giant star milliseconds before it went supa nova.

How would your theory explain the observed abundances of atomic elements (in particular hydrogen and helium), which the standard model does very well? Supernovae produce elements heavier than iron, so if the entire universe came from from a supernova you'd expect far larger abundances of heavier elements than are actually observed.

[badgerchap]

Wasn't it 4 elephants on the back of a turtle? Or am I in the wrong universe...

Yes, the good old 'Astrochelonian' hahaha. I think in that universe, you need a telescope with an octarine filter to see back as far as the beginning of time. Unless there's a picturebook in th UU Library - which of course there must be according to L-space theory.

On a serious note, wouldn't a star that big be so massive that after the explosion, the combined gravity of the component parts would pull everything back in, forming a colossal black hole containing all the mass of the universe. Also, this star would have a huge number of solar masses of material, and I can't imagine that much hydrogen just lying around in a single patch.

[badgerchap]

How would your theory explain the observed abundances of atomic elements (in particular hydrogen and helium), which the standard model does very well? Supernovae produce elements heavier than iron, so if the entire universe came from from a supernovae you'd expect far larger abundances of heavier elements than are actually observed.

Yeah, I think this is what put an end to the steady state theory, wasn't it? Something like 98% of the universe is Hydrogen and Helium, with the metals only making up a tiny part.

[acey]

Not to mention the cosmic microwave background radiation...

[toml42]

Not to mention the cosmic microwave background radiation...

An excuse to share my favourite graph

The solid line is the prediction from the big bang model, the margins of error in the observation of the CMB are so small that they're smaller than the thickness of the line.

[Hiddenharry]

but the big bang theore i think is a very good idea!

[badgerchap]

but the big bang theore i think is a very good idea!

I have to agree - better than anything else we've got!

[spacex]

You know Don Juan Matus (Castaneda) had many theories as believable as out best. Somehow, I doubt there was much math to it, and I'm sure the peyote helped.

When I was 20, I once had an argument with an old man in a laundry-mat. he believed that man never walked on the moon, it was all a TV thing done in Hollywod, and he also sincerely believed the World is flat. I argued with him (using all my years of experience and sci-fi intellect) for about 10 minutes. Eventually, he was convinced. "Are you blind? Can't you see? Just look around you...it's flat!"

I tried to explain that I'd been past the horizon and didn't fall off the edge, but what did I find there? Another horizon...no turtles, even.

Now better than 30 years later, who was I to argue with the man? Show my discust...shun his beliefs? For him the World "was" flat!

Now I'll just try not to invest too much in my own opinion, and work on being a more impeccable warrior.., somewhat.

(Have only the optics I came with,

a slight inclusion in the left,

and a focus just short of the end of my arm,

where I hold the book.)

You know, the inclusion causes a spot where something is missing, but my mind seems to fill it with whatever my right eye is seeing, so I never missed it much.

The point is I've lived with a mysterious black hole all my life. What do you want to know about it?

[Budding Star Gazer]

I think this theory has merit and is worth the time to look at it on a serious level, I too believe you can't get something from nothing this would go against everything we know about phyisics.

If the big bang is correct then it gave birth to all we know and are matter, energy and time, matter and energy being one and the same.

However If this is correct and all matter, energy, time was compressed to an infinatley single point there must have been gravity in place to force that compression to a point where the gravity could no longer hold back the energy forcing the collapse of said gravity that would result in the realese of energy, the big bang, just as it would happen in a super nova.

But there is one problem if our universe did form from the supernova of a star on the Infinatley large scale, why can't we see these stars, even if they are outside of our own universe they would still be so bright it would be impossible to miss them.

A good theory though

[themos]

The basic problem with this theory is that nature's laws (as we know them) are not scale-invariant.

[Wattsy]

Right i am no scientist and have no phd (which will probably show ) but here is my big bang theory.

Ok i do not and cannot believe that every thing we know and see came from nothing ! what i believe is that we sit in the middle of something so vast and beautiful that we just cannot comprehend the shear scheme of things......let me explain.

Scientists have long believed and subscribe to there being a quantum universe of the infinitely small where some laws of physics and Einstein's theory of relativity do not work but they still say it exists im making this point as it becomes relevant later.

So if there is a quantum universe why not a infinitely huge universe a place of super hyper giant stars ? im not suggesting multiverses as i believe it all to be the same place just different size scales so lets just look within our universe we observe many things but nothing more explosive and powerful than a super nova.what i believe to have happened in the infinitely large universe is a super hyper giant star went in to super nova OUR BIG BANG providing all the raw materials to create everything we know interesting though is it not ? after all we see supernova creating the building blocks for stellar nurseries in our own universe and nature plays its self out on many different levels and it would explain quite a few things.

1. Q. what is the universe expanding in to ?

A. the infinitely huge universe.

2. Q. why can we only trace the big bang back to .45 of a seconds after the big bang.

A. because it was a unstable hyper giant star milliseconds before it went supa nova.

I know people are going to say why can we not see this huge universe if it is soooo big well if you consider we cannot even see the very outer reaches of our own universe theres your answer.

there is a bit more to my theory but im not that good at explaining it in writing but thats the bones of it.

again just my thoughts just taking in observations on what we know to be true and expanding on them and not just picking theories out of the air on assumptions.

thanks for listening to my ramblings

chris

wouldn't we be seeing some effect of the gravity of these hyper giant stars around us? i always thought the univers was expanding as near as makes no difference to equally in all directions surely if there was a dirty great star near one side gravity would drag our universe out more that side massively red shifting all light in that area?

or it was the Great Green Arkleseizure

[Luke]

I have what is quite possibly a very silly theory about the big bang, I can't figure out cats never mind the universe.

Anyway, I wondered if the bang bang is basically the other side of a black hole. The black hole sucks up a bunch of stars and flings them out the other side at great speed, from a finite point, hence the bang. To us a black hole looks like a point hence appears to have incredible mass, but it's actually a universe.

Probably a deeply flawed idea, I would be relieved to hear reasons why this would be bonkers as it is based on zero science!

[Moonshane]

Straight away, I thought

"It's turtles all the way down...."

EDIT: Luckily, this is a geeky enough forum that I'm guessing at least half the people here will get it...

ha ha brilliant!! this is a bit like Haldane's retort when challenged after a lecture on evolution. she said something like "I don't believe that humans evolved from a single celled organism" he answered "But my dear, you did it yourself, and it only took nine months!".

but back on thread, I think the description given is pretty much the multiverse theory currently gaining popularity eg with Hawking's new book? I think the human problem is that we/I cannot grasp something being spontaneously created with a 'creator' but I am hoping if I read Hawking's book a few more times it might sink in.

[Moonshane]

I have what is quite possibly a very silly theory about the big bang, I can't figure out cats never mind the universe.

Anyway, I wondered if the bang bang is basically the other side of a black hole. The black hole sucks up a bunch of stars and flings them out the other side at great speed, from a finite point, hence the bang. To us a black hole looks like a point hence appears to have incredible mass, but it's actually a universe.

Probably a deeply flawed idea, I would be relieved to hear reasons why this would be bonkers as it is based on zero science!

I might be wrong (probably am) but I don't think there's another side to a black hole. it's a 'ball' which sucks in everything from all directions and retains it as greater and greater mass but in a small package. am not sure of the mechanism which prevents a black hole from swallowing the whole universe.

[acey]

am not sure of the mechanism which prevents a black hole from swallowing the whole universe.

Same mechanism that stops the Sun from swallowing the Earth: relative motion.

[themos]

I have what is quite possibly a very silly theory about the big bang, I can't figure out cats never mind the universe.

Anyway, I wondered if the bang bang is basically the other side of a black hole. The black hole sucks up a bunch of stars and flings them out the other side at great speed, from a finite point, hence the bang. To us a black hole looks like a point hence appears to have incredible mass, but it's actually a universe.

Probably a deeply flawed idea, I would be relieved to hear reasons why this would be bonkers as it is based on zero science!

I think this is the picture that some theoreticians have in their heads. Didn't Lawrence Krauss mention that in his talk? 58 mins into

[Moonshane]

Same mechanism that stops the Sun from swallowing the Earth: relative motion.

ahhh - how obvious! cheers!

[Vlad]

Big bang! Hah! A theory it is, and will remain until there is proof. Evidence is NOT proof. I believe this theory to be similar to the theory about the Earth being at the centre of the solar system. One day we will find the truth. Truth come from open minds, testing, trying, thinking, observing. One theory made early last century is not proof, no matter how many Einsteins worked on it. Our minds are seemingly incapable of understanding that things as they are now are the same as they have always been. ALWAYS is the word that closes our minds, we cannot understand it. I know I will get some stick about this, but I am free to express an opinion, and instead of insutling my words, simply give proof.

[George Jones]

Big bang! Hah! A theory it is, and will remain until there is proof. Evidence is NOT proof. I believe this theory to be similar to the theory about the Earth being at the centre of the solar system. One day we will find the truth. Truth come from open minds, testing, trying, thinking, observing. One theory made early last century is not proof, no matter how many Einsteins worked on it. Our minds are seemingly incapable of understanding that things as they are now are the same as they have always been. ALWAYS is the word that closes our minds, we cannot understand it. I know I will get some stick about this, but I am free to express an opinion, and instead of insutling my words, simply give proof.

No physics theory is ever proved. Do you know why?

Robert Geroch, a very, very good mathematical physicist wrote

I wouldn't recognize the "proof of a physical theory" if I saw one.

[Moonshane]

I think that any physicist would like nothing more than proof that something does not exist. proof is proof is proof and I suppose they don't really care WHAT the truth is as long as they get there (although I am sure there are some things we will possibly never find proof for and therefore theories will be all we have). The Multiverse Theory is possibly one like this but who knows....

Carl Sagan wrote "There is perhaps no better a demonstration of the folly of human conceits, than this distant image of our tiny world. This is to say nothing of the folly of wars, which from space would appear to be little more than the squabbles of mites on a plum."

When you consider this sort of thing, it's no wonder we don't understand it yet!

[FraserClarke]

Big bang! Hah! A theory it is, and will remain until there is proof.

Actually it is only a model, rather than a theory, as the initial conditions are entirely unconstrained and unpredicted.

However it is by far the best model people have come up with, and it explains our observations far better than anything else anyone has thought of.