Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P 95 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  zagor

  And so, Zagor, you may be much further along than I am on this subject, since you now seem more than convinced as to the overall veracity of the big bang. I, on the other hand, have many questions that cause me to........shall I say "wonder how true Big Bang really is in the final scheme of things". In that sense, I am quite prepared to sit in this "classroom" and let the rest of you be the "professors" here. But just don't expect me to sit there quietly while you do all the "spoon-feeding".

  
  
  Rod P,
  

  To clarify it a bit further, astronomical observation do show that galaxies are moving away from apparently a common point, which would indicate some sort of Big Bang beginning. Also if we are to believe astronomers then further we look in time through our telescopes we see more and more of embryonic galaxies that are still being formed.
  
  

  Of course, the theory itself is not completely fool-proof. Here is a good place to start your search for answers http://www.definition-info.com/Big_bang.html
  
  
  The problem lies not in Big Bang itself but in our theoretical frameworks where two major branches of physics General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics simply don’t match, nor can they explain it adequately.
  
  
  To illustrate, we know that any star about three times more massive than our sun can at the end of its life trigger gravitational collapse that would lead it into formation of a black hole. At its centre we would have a singularity i.e. infinitely dense and small single point. Nothing, can escape such a strong gravitational pull. Not even light. We know such places exist because we can observe their effect on nearby space which we can observe. Going back in time we can extrapolate that at the beginning of time there was only a singularity, a point from which Big Bang originated. Of course, going by understanding of General Relativity Big Bang would never be able to happen since such an infinitely dense point would not be able to expend at any rate. (Assuming it would have to have a mass googolplex times more massive than any know black hole)
  
  
  
  Of course, there is other side of the issue here – Quantum Mechanics which is in direct conflict with General Relativity, which deals with probabilities at the level of atoms.
  Of course, it should not be surprising if both of these theories would break down in an attempt to explain what triggered moment of creation of universe or Big Bang. To understand even singularity adequately in my opinion one would have to leave comfortable realms of both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and embark on even more remarkable journey into the realm of pure energy at the level of strings. Strings are (calculations tell us) building blocks of building blocks of universe, i.e. quarks themselves.
  
  String theory opens a wonderful new world that not only unifies both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics but opens a possibility that all mass and energy in this universe has come from elsewhere, dimensions that are beyond our own three-dimensional universe.
  
  I Hope this short explanation intrigued you enough to make further study in this direction.
  
  Also do take time to watch these videos http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

  Zagor
• 

  Satanus

  Is there a way to save those vids to harddisk?

  S
• 

  zagor

  S,

  You could try using Stream Down from http://stream-down.cocsoft.com

  Zagor
• 

  Satanus

  Got it, tried it. Didn't work. I can't find the address where they hide them.

  S
• 

  zagor

  Well, S, I suppose the only other way is to actually buy these videos from PBS if you want to have a copy of them
• 

  Satanus

  You're cruel

  S
• 

  DannyBloem

  Danny,

  Okay, finally I am getting back to you.

  Ok.

  You did present a pretty good summation for the methods used to calculate the distances of stars that are not too far away (i.e. within our own Milky Way galaxy). However, I am not too sure how useful or applicable these methodologies are for galaxies and quasars that are very far away.

  A lot of the methods of distance calculations I mentioned are for other galaxies only, and are not applicable to our own galaxies. They are very usefull for other galaxies. Some methods are usefull for galxies close by (relatively) and others can be used on galaxies more far away.

  Similarly, for the Closer Galaxies, scientists may have produced some goo observational data using the techniques you outlined (say, for instance, up to 200 million light years away- and that is only my arbitrary assumption here). However, when the distances start to get very far, such as galaxies 300 million miles away, and quasars in the billions of light years away, I find the probability (indeed, certainty) for error, increasing exponentially. (Yes, I realize, they have to start somewhere, and I applaud that.)

  The variable star approach works to about that distance (I assume you eman light years not miles). The brightest star and some others work for objects much further, but also limited. The gravitational lense effect can work for objects very far.
  It is true, that the error increases with distance.
  In most scientific papers these errors are estimated and provided. In physisc in general in many cases error like 25% are acceptable.

  However, I note a lot of "tinkering around" with mathematical models and so-called "constants", manipulating space-time diagrams, producing a wide array of +/- uncertainty ranges and variances of orders of magnitude that I find quite disconcerting, given how vociferous they are about expecting us to "hang our hats" on the big bang theory and none else. It reminds me of Cinderella's wicked step-sisters who were trying on the glass slipper, and one of them said "Well, I'll just MAKE it fit!"

  I am sorry I do not agree with you there. You need a theory to explain the observations. This theory can require constants that have to be observed indirectly with observations. That is not tinkering around, that is finding a good theory that supports observations.

  That, to my mind, is not dissimilar to the situation where the scientists utilize a number of methods and multi-disciplinarian approaches to verifiying the big bang. But when one set of variables does not quite fit with other sets of variables, then they jigger the results of the different sets (of course, within the uncertainty ranges and tolerances) in order to make things "fit better". And I don't mind the exercise in playing with "educated guesses" and "what if" scenarios- in fact, I see that as a necessary exercise in the final analysis. What disturbs me is, that in the face of this, they still present the "big bang" as a kind of Holy Grail", and nothing else is possible. It is more about "attitude" than anything else, that bothers me.

  The big Bang theory is very much an open theory. It is far from complete. Adaptions and modifications are needed and will come in the future. I do not think it is presented as a holy grail.
  What we observe now is that the universe is expanding, there is enough proof for that IMO. This means that before it was smaller, and at a certain moment was very small. This can be a singularity or a small area, there are lots of possibilitie shere. Some more plausable and some fit the theory better.

  Now, on the other hand, proponents of teh bib bang theory do acknowledge:

  1) Observational data from many serouces support, or are consistent with, BOTH the big bang and the "steady state" theories of the universe

  Some observations are consistent with both, some observations are not consistent with the stady state also. The bing bang theory can explain ore of the observations then the stady state theory.

  2) None of these prove the big bang (or the "steady state" or other models).

  Prove is a difficult word. How do you prove anything, if you can't copy it.
  But in case of the big bang theory I do not think many astronomers will say that it is a proven fact or so.

  It is just that they are convinced that, taken together, the observations show that, in their opinion, Big Bang is the best current model for the universe, or that more observations support Big Bang than Steady State. And therein lies the basis for continued debate, wich, of course, will inevitably carry on.

  Yes, that sums it up. The BB is the best current model and fits to more observations then other theories.

  Now, respecting your comments on the connections between some quasars and normal galaxies:

  Come back to that.
• 

  DannyBloem

  When you state "and has the same distance, I take it you mean "distance from us".

  yes of course, we are being egocentric here.

  I note that you have some doubts as to the RedShift = Speed being a good explanation.

  I have doubts, that in this case of the quasar, redshift = speed * H0 is not a good explanation.
  First of all, just to be clear. Speed -> red shift is proven. If there is speed, there will be red shift (or blue shift). I think everyone will agree on this.
  This does not automaticalay mean that red shift -> speed, of cause because it would be possible that there is another thing that can give red-shift.
  There are many galaxies that follow the red shift -> speed rule though (where you can messure red shift and distance independtly). So it is not something strage or totally invalid.

  I don't think this is a viable explanation either. If the quasar has a recessional velocity of at least 8X or 10X (or more) than that of the galaxy, heading out into deep space, how can it be interacting at all with the galaxy?

  Why not? Well it can, there is enough time to interact. Like a bullet pasing through a duck, you would say it interacted right?

  It is, instead, rapidly receding from the galaxy (as well as us), and long ago would have left it in the "cosmic dust" so to speak. Is it simply a mere coincidence that some twenty or so similar cases of quasars interacting with nearby galaxies have been discovered and observed?

  It is not totally impossible. Just a coincidence, but the question is more why it is moving at such a speed. That itself is very unlikely. But if there would be objects moving at the speed, it could be that we only see them when they interact. Like if there were bullets flying around you would only see the impacts.
  However I do not give it as very likely (but try to keep open the options, to let you think about it). The reasons why I think it is unlikely are: 1) why would theer be objects moving so fast, not logical.
  2) if there were, why are they all moving away from us? This last argument is a strong argument to indicate that in this case the red shift is not caused by speed.

  As for gravitational pull and possible nuclear processes, would you care to elaborate how either one of these would account for such a high red-shift (2.11)? These do not seem very plausible to me.

  When there is a heavy and small object, light comming from that object has a red shift. It loses energy gtting out of the gravitational pull. This has to do with the theory of genral relativity.
  I can imagine this is a valid explanation for this quasar. It is a very heavy object. It is bright because of interaction with matter in the galaxy. When light tries to leave it is red shifted because it is a small heavy object. Makes sense so far.
  It would need some calculations to see if this explanation holds or not. But as far as I can see now, it sounds possible.

  The problem with nuclear processes is that they work on small distances and can hardly provide answers here imo.

  Danny
• 

  zagor

  People are talking about red-shift as if it was a gospel. Red-shift relies on speed of light never changing. But what if speed of light can slow down after millions of light years. It can't happen, can it?
  Well light cannot escape black holes, it is slowed down to the point that its speed becomes negative and is literally sucked back in. What makes you think that light as a wave would not loose its momentum after crossing vastness of the universe?!?!?
  

  Can't happen?!?!? perhaps you should read this: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/accelerating.html
• 

  Rod P

  Zagor,

  Thank you for your interesting and informative sites. I have added them to my "favorites'.

  No luck on the videos though.

  I have always been puzzled as to how scientists can differentiate between the recession of objects away from us (and each other) AND the expansion of space itself. That one just boggles me. Is everything in space (ie the Universe) actually moving away from us, or are they sitting there, while the space around them is expanding outward, thus causing the objects to move away? Or is it a combination of both? If so, to what extent does one attribute the measurements to each of these influences? Or is the question irrelevant?

  Just to let you know what's going on here: It is not so much about making such a big deal over Red-Shift, as it is that we are trying to focus on one or two main things as a time. Then we will move on to other factors relevant to big bang, etc. Otherwise we will just be hopping around like Mexican jumping beans, playing three-dimensional chess, and getting all bogged down with the variables and the complexities.

  RedShift happens to be a very important priority factor with so much of the data respecting the universe, and particularly when it comes to objects like quasars that are supposed to be examples of the most distant objects, and therefore the oldest in time, and closest to the origins of the big bang (i.e. the singularity). It is astronomers like Halton Arp who are challenging the assumptions or interpretations of RedShift = Distance and Velocity by observing instances of Quasars interacting with nearby Galaxies. If conventional wisdom says that the Quasars are supposed to be billions of light years away, and observations are being made that they are, in fact, interacting with Galaxies that are something like 300 million light years away, then how can the RedShift readings possibly mean Distance and Velocity? It simply does not make sense. Therefore, RedShift must mean something else, at least in these instances. But the kicker here is that RedShift is one of the real pillars of the Big Bang theory. If it falls, the rest of the theory could fall like a house of cards. Who knows?

  Rod P.