big bang theory made by idiots?

The non amateur stuff. Hawking, black holes, that sort of thing

Moderators: Guy Fennimore, joe, Brian

davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

Michael Hezzlewood wrote:
davep wrote:It can? I know that it can be converted to energy, but I wasn't aware that it could be "destroyed". How do you do that?
When matter is converted to energy it is, in effect, destroyed as it no longer exists in material form.
By your own admission energy can also be converted back into matter, this is the point that your idea hinges on isn't it?
Michael Hezzlewood wrote:
davep wrote:So you're suggesting that there's evidence for an infinite supply of energy that can be converted into matter?
Not necessarily infinite, but a vast amount none the less. Even the big bang requires an infinite amount of energy from some source if the expansion is to go on forever.
So where does one find this store of energy? How would one experimentally test for this?
Michael Hezzlewood wrote:
davep wrote:In other words you're proposing a steady state hypothesis? Does it make any predictions?
Not really, as there is an expansion due to production of matter/mass from energy, there by creating space.
But you seem to be proposing a hypothesis in which there is no "big bang" event, there is no moment of "creation". That would seem to suggest a universe that has always existed and will always exist. That sounds an awful lot like a variation on a steady state approach to me. Consider this brief description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory wrote:The steady state theory was developed as a result of theoretical calculations that showed that a static universe was impossible under general relativity and observations by Edwin Hubble that the universe was expanding. The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its look over time. For this to work, new matter must be formed to keep the density equal over time.
What you're kicking about sounds exactly the same as the above.
Michael Hezzlewood wrote:I suppose given this hypothesis, the Universe could pulsate in a turbulent manner, expanding more in more energetic regions. There is always the possibility that the Universe that we see is only a tiny fraction of what actually exists, and that we may be witnessing only a regional expansion. (Just toying with ideas here).
That would seem to suggest a version of chaotic inflation theory.

On top of all of the above I'm also interested in what problems are solved by the idea you've got in mind. What problems are there in cosmology, right now, such that this idea better fits the evidence? That is to say, can you describe how it fits all available evidence that we have at the moment as well as describe how it also fits observations that are a problem for current cosmology models?
brian livesey
Posts: 5618
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Phenomena..

Post by brian livesey »

You ask what is the "stuff" of the Universe,Joe. Will PHENOMENA do?
brian
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

It will probably have to do as there's not much more we can add.

We use our tools and detectors to try and discover what is happening all around us but a detector designed to detect squidgets can only tell us that it has detected squidgets and how many, nothing much about what it is. As Daniel Dennett wrote, "The only way to answer questions about what quality it is which is detected by an m-detector is to point to the detector and say it's the quality detected by this thing here."

It's challenging, to say the least, to imagine a universe without detectors, the universe that obviously existed before life evolved, because there's not much you can say about it. I'm very aware that science is all about observation, comparison, measurement, prediction, etc. and it is the only way we can make sense of the universe, I'm fine with that. I just hate thinking of things that you can't think about. :D
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Michael Hezzlewood wrote:It is difficult to pinpoint where matter ends and energy begins. I know electrons for example have negligable mass but is it energy or matter? Other sub-atomic particles such as quarks, pions, leptons and bosons etc may also have mass, but so little that we may never be able to measure it. Would their having the slightest mass mean they are matter?I'm not sure.
My, admittedly muddled, knowledge of mass is that most of it is energy. The energy of motion of a particle accounts for the majority of its mass. What the other minor part is...well, it's still work in progress, as you hint at. But the energy has mass therefore do you include that when you imagine matter being removed? Also, according to BB and Inflation theories, didn't space and the expansion of it begin before particles "condensed" (symmetry breaking), during a radiation only phase ?
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
brian livesey
Posts: 5618
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Unbounded nature..

Post by brian livesey »

The reason we can't say where energy and where mass begin is because there are no sharp delineations in nature. Everything merges into everything else,and no part of nature takes precendence over any other part.
Where can we say were one colour of the spectrum ends and another begins? At what point can we say when something that was living has died?
For convenience's sake, of course, we impose boundaries on nature, but this is a mental exercise ( as are "mass" and "energy"),nature knows no boundaries.
brian
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

What is a little unclear, to me anyway, is if (infinite) energy has always been around, according to the theory that Michael has highlighted, what happens to it that causes it to transform it into the matter that then goes on to produce or expand space?
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
Paul S
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:24 am
Location: 44.1N & 4.5E
Contact:

Post by Paul S »

joe wrote:What is a little unclear, to me anyway, is if (infinite) energy has always been around, according to the theory that Michael has highlighted, what happens to it that causes it to transform it into the matter that then goes on to produce or expand space?
Entropy & gravity at a wild guess
200mm f6 Revelation 8 Dob
Bins: 10 x 50 & 8 x 21
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Paul S wrote:Entropy & gravity at a wild guess
Are you able to add a little bit of meat to those bones? :)
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
brian livesey
Posts: 5618
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Voila tout..

Post by brian livesey »

If we ask physicists, Joe, to explain what it is that causes energy to transform into matter or vice versa, they'll point to mathematical formulae.
In the real world of energy/matter transmutation, all we can say is voila tout!
brian
Paul S
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:24 am
Location: 44.1N & 4.5E
Contact:

Post by Paul S »

joe wrote:
Paul S wrote:Entropy & gravity at a wild guess
Are you able to add a little bit of meat to those bones? :)
Uhh. Barely :wink:

AFAIK Entropy is always increasing; so presumably it was at its highest at the big bang (or at least very soon after, as we don't seem to really know what was going on in the initial millisecond or so).

What I'm not clear about is how much of that early universe was energy and how much was mass. They are, are they not, one and the same? ; I find it easier to imagine a soup of strings that then turned into exotic particles, thence to netrons, protons etc. And then we know that with cooling and expansion, gravity acted to clump matter together.

Cheers

Paul
200mm f6 Revelation 8 Dob
Bins: 10 x 50 & 8 x 21
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Ah, yes, but Michael was proposing a non-Big Bang situation. I can understand what you say regarding a hot, dense beginning but I'm not sure how the other situation arises - energy into matter from these energetic regions. I'd also like to see how it holds up to the black body spectrum of the CMBR which was a sizable nail in the coffin of "steady state" theories, although I recognise that this may not be the same.
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
Paul S
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:24 am
Location: 44.1N & 4.5E
Contact:

Post by Paul S »

joe wrote:energy into matter from these energetic regions. I'd also like to see how it holds up to the black body spectrum of the CMBR which was a sizable nail in the coffin of "steady state" theories, although I recognise that this may not be the same.
Oh I see. Can't speak for that particular line of thinking - but mass can come from energy in particle colliders, so presumably that sort of scenario is being thought of.

You're right of course about the CBR; It seems there's long been overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang, what with CBR and other stuff like the existence of certain lighter elements IIRC. There's no other theory that seems to come close.

Cheers

Paul
200mm f6 Revelation 8 Dob
Bins: 10 x 50 & 8 x 21
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Re: Voila tout..

Post by joe »

brian livesey wrote:If we ask physicists, Joe, to explain what it is that causes energy to transform into matter or vice versa, they'll point to mathematical formulae.
Yes. Mathematical formulae are just part of another language that fails to explain what physical phenomena are.
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
Zeke
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:29 pm
Location: Wigan
Contact:

Post by Zeke »

I didn't read all of the replies but I am certain of one thing, I love this forum and I've been on a short while.
Where else could I start with an attack on the 'Big Bang' and cover such topics as green writing on black or whatever.
Amazing!
Never worry!
Konus 500.
8x30 binos.
Canon EOS 1000F.
Tamron 80-210mm telephoto.
Fujifinepix S1000fd.
http://coriantumr.wordpress.com/
Meade ETX 80
cigarshaped
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Bracknell, UK
Contact:

Big bang theory made by idiots?

Post by cigarshaped »

I agree with Zeke, it's a pleasant change to see intelligent discussion, without pedantic arguments breaking out.

It may be 2 late but there's a number of points I want to raise/discuss:

pg2. Paul S: Relativity proof by atomic clocks on planes - I hear that radioactive decay rates can be varied by external influences. (Trying to remember the evidence source)

pg3. Paul S: ..theories proven by experiment/ observation are surely better than those still on paper?

pg4. Michael H: Interstellar energy lines up with ideas of plasma filaments threading through space, identified by their magnetic fields, etc. That means electric current flowing in BIG amps.

pg6 Joe:
there's long been overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang, what with CBR and other stuff
CMBR What does it prove - that there's plasma energy out there? 99.9% of the universe ain't it? Plasma is a wideband source.

pg 6. Brian
..what it is that causes energy to transform into matter or vice versa..
Energy/ matter transmutation: Read the last bit of Halton Arp's 'Seeing Red'. See what a respected astronomer says, who worked with the great Edwin Hubble. His US observation time was curtailed - why? Because he dared to dispute the belief that redshift ONLY = distance/ speed. Observations have shown that bodies such as quasars originate from the heart of galaxies, normally in pairs at LIGHTSPEED! Their energy is enormous but mass = 0; redshift (z) HIGH. Later they reduce speed, increase mass and have lower z by predictable steps. Ultimately becoming the protogalactic offspring of the mother galaxy. Sounds sensible to me.

Or would you rather place reliance on a universe expansion that depends on some dodgy assumptions about light from deep space, gravitational lensing and v weird maths?
Post Reply