First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply The Big Bang never happened?
10350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 2/10/15


First of all, by scientists you mean TWO physicists (don't want any exaggerated claims). & What's there to discuss? - I highly doubt ANY of us on this site are capable of a discussion that goes far beyond our knowledge; unless someone is brave enough to convince me they understand PhD level Quantum Theory? Speculation among ignorant peasants such as myself doesn't really interest me. I'll let the big boys handle that while I sit back, smile, and nod!

With that said, I know very minor concepts about quantum correction & that it has been studied for quite some time. As far as I can tell that article you posted is just something to gather more attention to an existing issue, not that it is a new "theory" or that it is even in competition with the big bang theory on a serious level.

Without going into any sort of depth I think simply using an infinite universe to solve dark energy's expansion by gravitons seems ad hoc, but hey, I can barely hang with Newtonian physics so who am I to spout my worthless opinion on Quantum/Relativity.

14468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 2/10/15

AzazelOfNexium wrote:Action = Big bang (rapid expansion of the universe)----> effect = the universe is created


So the universe rapidly expanded before it existed right? Wot iz lojikz?
20192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Heroes Associ...
Offline
Posted 2/10/15 , edited 2/10/15


I dont know if you posed a question or not, but the big bang was not an explosion as the name would make you think, it was actually a rapid expansion of an infinitely dense point. (I dont know the proper explanation, but any quick google search on the big bang will bring up quite a hefty amount of articles)

The universe did not exist before it expanded, no one knows what was the trigger that caused the Big bang, some scientist allude collision of molecules and various other things; however the universe as we know it, did not exist before the rapid expansion. The rapid expansion was the trigger that created the universe.
34 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/15
Lol @ the idea of being able to explain the very beginning of everything.
That's about as arrogant as...eh, pick a religion.
6197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / USA- Ohio
Offline
Posted 2/10/15 , edited 2/12/15
Well... no matter how you cut it, SOMETHING had to exist first, no? Regardless of if the Big Bang, a God of some sort, or some thing of that nature started the universe we know, Something was there to start it all. You can't really get something from nothing. It can't just be 'poof, magic' because magic wouldn't exist. A bit of a paradox, honestly. I always just believed it's always just been... there. I don't think we can really comprehend how the universe would have truly started, seeing as you would have to figure out how something emerged from nothing but that means literally nothing caused something. I'd continue that route, but I think I'm clear enough. I'll confuse myself too much if I think that way any more
14468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 2/10/15

AzazelOfNexium wrote:
however the universe as we know it, did not exist before the rapid expansion


Alright, that's good enough clarification for me; the rest is just how you apply the terms. The "universe as we know it" is also how I interpreted it... a change in state. For a while there I thought you were saying there wasn't even subatomic particles or something, my bad.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/15
Bringing back the aether too I see...

It's an interesting time to live... fortunately and unfortunately..
41690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere
Offline
Posted 2/10/15
I'm not apposed to this idea as it does seem interesting. I still would like to see more on this claim. I'm still rather skeptical especially when you take the idea that something came from nothing. Wouldn't this proposition raise the idea that the universe is eternal? Now I do not claim to be any kind of expert about the universe, but we do believe the universe had a beginning,right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/10/15

Ctonhunter wrote:

I'm not apposed to this idea as it does seem interesting. I still would like to see more on this claim. I'm still rather skeptical especially when you take the idea that something came from nothing. Wouldn't this proposition raise the idea that the universe is eternal? Now I do not claim to be any kind of expert about the universe, but we do believe the universe had a beginning,right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


This is all from what I gather physics at the planck scale, which should always be treated with a grain of salt.

None of this changes the basic format of the big bang near the well studied regions like the CMB or nucleosynthesis, etc. So consider the 'beginning' of our current universe to have happened somewhere around 'cosmic inflation', or 10^-32 seconds after whatever the hell the period 'before inflation' would have been like. Or the planck epoch... *shudder*.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 2/10/15
I wouldn't put much weight on it, to be honest. It's a theoretical model for a quantum gravity theory, which is an area we're really fuzzy about. The linked article is also vague what it means by finite size; I'd imagine in the macroscopic limit the Friedmann equations would still hold, so it seems like the universe as t->-inf would asymptotically approach a singularity; however, it's never actually been a singularity.

Which, if the latter is true (i.e. the universe was just really small 13.8 billion years ago), it basically means the big bang theory is here to stay since the majority of the BBT focuses on how the universe has evolved, not how/when it started.
41690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere
Offline
Posted 2/10/15

SilvaZoldyck wrote:


Ctonhunter wrote:

I'm not apposed to this idea as it does seem interesting. I still would like to see more on this claim. I'm still rather skeptical especially when you take the idea that something came from nothing. Wouldn't this proposition raise the idea that the universe is eternal? Now I do not claim to be any kind of expert about the universe, but we do believe the universe had a beginning,right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


This is all from what I gather physics at the planck scale, which should always be treated with a grain of salt.

None of this changes the basic format of the big bang near the well studied regions like the CMB or nucleosynthesis, etc. So consider the 'beginning' of our current universe to have happened somewhere around 'cosmic inflation', or 10^-32 seconds after whatever the hell the period 'before inflation' would have been like. Or the planck epoch... *shudder*.


Well I take your word on treating the planck scale with a grain of salt. This is something I'll have to look more into. Should of probably listened more in Physics class, but none of it actually sounds familiar so I may have never even learned it. If you don't mind explaining this further I would greatly appreciate it....research material will also help.

17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/15
Do I know anything about quantum physics?
No.
Thus, my opinion on this matter is not scientifically informed.
1367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21
Offline
Posted 2/10/15
The theory doesnt make sense with entropy
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/10/15 , edited 2/10/15

Ctonhunter wrote:


SilvaZoldyck wrote:

This is all from what I gather physics at the planck scale, which should always be treated with a grain of salt.

None of this changes the basic format of the big bang near the well studied regions like the CMB or nucleosynthesis, etc. So consider the 'beginning' of our current universe to have happened somewhere around 'cosmic inflation', or 10^-32 seconds after whatever the hell the period 'before inflation' would have been like. Or the planck epoch... *shudder*.


Well I take your word on treating the planck scale with a grain of salt. This is something I'll have to look more into. Should of probably listened more in Physics class, but none of it actually sounds familiar so I may have never even learned it. If you don't mind explaining this further I would greatly appreciate it....research material will also help.



Sure, what exactly would you want to learn more about? And do you want more of a 'history and ad hoc what physicists say' type explanation, or when you want research material, would you prefer a bit more textbook material to build your intuition of *how* physicists figured this stuff out, rather than just me pointing to classic experiments like Hubble's redshift.

I can offer both, and I'd probably have a bit more fun edging to a bit more of the technical intuition, but if you prefer a just 'history of the big bang theory and what it states' that is probably better for just casual interest.

If you prefer a slightly more in depth view, what's your physics education like? Have you heard of Maxwell's Equations, 'the ultraviolet catastrophe', 'blackbody radiation', and with reference to 'relativity' have you heard of 'the equivalence principles' and have some sense of how GR differs from SR? Again if not, don't worry about it, I'm just trying to gauge where would be a good place to begin.

For references, how digestible are things like Sean Carroll's blog to you?

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/06/the-state-of-the-early-universe/

(I'd rather avoid actual papers because papers are hard to read if you don't have a substantial math background, and I'd rather avoid the popular press because it tends to be very bad at describing physics. So the sources I'd tend to go for on this subject are things like textbooks, physicist blogs, and lectures intended at not-graduate level audiences)


another505 wrote:

The theory doesnt make sense with entropy


... Unless you can define a phase space, this seems like you're just repeating something you've heard from somewhere else. How do you define the word 'entropy'?
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 2/10/15

SilvaZoldyck wrote:

(I'd rather avoid actual papers because papers are hard to read if you don't have a substantial math background, and I'd rather avoid the popular press because it tends to be very bad at describing physics. So the sources I'd tend to go for on this subject are things like textbooks, physicist blogs, and lectures intended at not-graduate level audiences)


I just wanna second this opinion.

In terms of particular textbooks, the Feynman Lectures are notable for being put online for free. That said, it does go into calculus *relatively* quickly, but so long as you know the derivative is a speedometer measuring how "quick" something changes and the integral is a measure of how much something has changed, I don't think it'll be too bad. Feynman covers the relevant calculus from scratch, albeit, rather quickly. SilvaZoldyck can agree/disagree on Feynman lectures though.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.