Hans Jelbring
Tallbloke Talkshop
Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:26 CDT

Big Bang

There is freedom of choosing religion in our country so there is no problem what you or I believe. On the other hand there is a problem when scientists mix facts supported by evidence and laws of nature with fantasy, unfounded hypotheses and faith.

There is no qualitative difference being a creationist believing that earth and our galaxy was created 6000 years ago or believing that the universe was created from a small cosmic egg 14 billion years ago. From where did this egg originate and what existed before that?

There must have been something more (or rather, less) than a nuclear bomb within it since at that point not even matter are believed to has existed. None of these beliefs are or can be supported by scientific methods or verified experience. Hence, it cannot be classified as science.

Many years ago a saw a "scientific" 600 page book in a book store. It claimed to tell what happened in the first MINUTE after Big Bang. It was loaded with formulae and unverified hypotheses. To me this book represented a peak of human hubris, a pretention that logic and mathematical models without any verified anchoring in reality could give the answer to the eternal mystery of our existence. Evidently the author was religious or crazy.

This is still my opinion. Science can hardly explain every problem that nature presents using scientific methods. Some parts of physical reality are just too complex to untangle, at least at our contemporary level of scientific understanding and knowledge. And so, any such statement is by definition unscientific. The concept of Big Bang and the following process would be called a fairy tale or superstition during the old days.

Today measurements of micro wave radiation from space are stated to tell what happened during the first SECOND after Big Bang. What a joke! What about measurements of other types of electromagnetic radiation that come from space such as, radio waves, visible light, X-rays and gamma rays which often present great problems to interpret?

You could as well state that the universe was created by Mickey Mouse and suggest he should get a Noble prize for his great feat.

Hans Jelbring

Hans cites a science-journalism sensationalism which, unfortunately the general public take at face value without performing any independent research.

There was never a big bang. Never happened.
Years ago some astronomers and theoreticians off-handedly mentioned that the freshly discovered CMBR "looked just like the residual heat from a terrific explosion."
That's what started the whole "big bang" nomenclature, so let me just clear up this glaring point:
The Current Model is not a big bang theory, there was never a big bang theory, there is in fact no such thing as a big bang theory.
It is Inflation Theory, and it doesn't even begin until 10^-22 seconds after *whatever might've happened prior to the photon veil*.
It is based purely and 100% upon physical observation, it is not a theory, it is a model of observed phenomenae called scientific-theory which is different from a layman's theory. A scientific-theory is where you see an apple fall, then you make math for the apple falling, you test the math with another apple, the math is proved consistent with physical observation, it came from physical observation, it is retested by peers, the math is called scientific-theory but it describes physical fact. That's a scientific-theory.

Nothing about the Current Model talks or postulates or attempts to fathom what happened before the photon veil.

But there is math for a working possibility. In entropy.

If you have a universe of nothing, and anything ever appears in it ever, anything at all, General Relativity explicits that all spacetime in the entire universe collapses around this point.
There you have a cosmic egg, the math says this, it is all consistently supported by physical observation but there is no possibility of physical observation of the cosmic egg itself, so it's not included in the Inflation Theory or Current Model.
But the math works.

Now do you believe that entropy exists? Do you believe the laws of physics thus observed exist? Do you believe that the universe will eventually undergo a heat death?
If yes, then you believe in a cosmic egg. Because in heat death lay a virtual particle field, and the instant after total heat death, that any particle-antiparticle pairing experiences extreme variation (observed in fluid dynamics through brownian motion), then the entire dead/empty universe will collapse immediately around it, and form a new concentration and expansion.


But FYI, just to be perfectly clear, the Current Model explicitly allows for the distinct possibility that a bored chinese dragon, or a hairy invisible giant, simply created everything just prior to the photon veil. It is quite a part of the science, the part where nobody can possibly ever soundly falsify any wild hypothesis. It is quite simply, utterly irrelevent.
Find heart in religion, find competition in science. Competition is nasty, even with aftershave and a nice suit, it'll wreck your mom for funzies. Heart is in your personal philosophy, not among kids who all think they're the next Einstein.

i'm more into the universe has always been here, and always will...


or, it could be reciprocal, just a big 100 billion year loop...

It would certainly follow that everything which is in everything contains everything all the time.

Strict definition of the word 'universe'.

i don't think we are in a position to know that... but no one has ever put a "end" to the universe... so i guess it would be where our FOV ends...

Dude, the word literally means "all that can ever be stated about anything and everything" in etymology.

In order for it to be anything else, a different word, like multiverse would have to be used to describe everything. And then it would still be encompassed by 'universe' whenever speaking about it in entirety.

ie. M-Brane Theory is in fact another mathematical nomenclature and not an actual physical description. The multiverse hypothesis is created by failing to solve singularities in the current models and simply setting them aside, so you have a new brane (dimension) for every part of the observable universe that current theorum can't yet describe being incomplete.
Taking it literally is like saying, my car can't do 50mph but can do 49mph or 51mph so it must be in another dimension at 50mph.
Instead of saying, maybe there's just something wrong with my car.
The car of course being the math.

Big Bang and Black Hole Theory faces same laws of physics in reverse phenomena. It means out side in &in side out. But we now certain of Black Hole presence. If then You reciprocaly taken as Light Cone arise from singularity of Black Hole... Then is this may be reason for origin of universe 14 bl yrs before. we are the origin from this Light cone and cycle is run on for infinite times.

I thought Hans was a Climatologist?

A major irony of the big bang theory was that it's creation was done by a clergyman of the church of Rome and follows the principles of that dogma. Creationists are also ignoring data in that some of the ancient writings on the subject state each period of creation was "for a time" which is unspecified as to how long.

Another issue with the big bang is it considers gravity the strongest natural force in the universe (as is the problem with modern physics). The strongest force (even according to modern physics) is EM. 10^39 as strong as the next strongest force at distance.

The universe is plasma based - the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are the ones which are the fundamental force equations of the universe. Our island of 'balanced' charges is an anomaly.

Arguing points of either idea is like arguing whether a glass is half full or empty and ignoring the individual drinking it dry.

which Clergyman,Einstein,Friedman,De Sitter or Hubble?
Oh,you mean le Maitre?
As if Jesuits had ever given a good damn about Catholic Dogma!

The Model still fits the available Evidence best!
Besides,to question a Scientists Work on the Basis that he is a Catholic Priest is kind of dim!

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lema�tre's theory provided a scientific validation for existence of God and Catholicism. However, Lema�tre resented the Pope's proclamation.[18][19] When Lema�tre and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He convinced the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[20] While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre

BTW,what motives did the other Proponents of the Theory have?

its eternal, no big bang, it all works, because of a double helix spiral, which returns as what we think of as antimatter, its going in both direction, this will continue for ever as will our spirits or spirit which are/is essentially what we call love. peace and love to everyone :)

Why can't there be multiple big bangs and still have an eternal universe. What is up with all these time stops right here, or before time began nonsense? I think, even though I have no answers, that any view or scheme, if the negative connotation be pardoned, that any view should exist without sharp edges to its realm of applicability. Any theory which says, all is fine until this one tiny point, or that there is a break in a timeline, just sits unnaturally no matter how well it works with small successes. It is like we are faced by the quantum problem, whether there is a discrete small limit, is only because all of our large scale dynamics known to date have breaks on a cosmic scale. I mean, just take Lee's grandfather pregnancy clause, and if one says that is true, there must have been more than one big bang, more than one birth of galaxies, and then note the current deficiency in classical gr on the cosmological scale, that is, that it is compatible with a single creation point, the way points forward is that to a type of dynamics which allows a succession of cosmic-scale events, which still preserves unity of a world picture. Perhaps the dynamics would offer new interpretations of the great experimental success of qm in its domain. History has shown that whether or not most scientists wish to see it as such, that interpretation of experiment is really quite a subject task. Sure, they present such facts as are called natural, but the way they are related to other concepts is entirely human thought based. So their meaning is already a vague form of subjective experience of the scientist as he is reading the results of the field work. Why not do so more straight forwardly, if it is going down any-who? So many very smart, genius minds have been trying to get the qm view in a good interpretation, but leave it and it will be explained by some deeper theory. I think the greatest limitation put on sciences progress right now is that the big bang theories rely on many assumptions and initial conditions. So cut the initial and try to understand what one thing wen to another, not some glorious, part the clouds and have one perfect blast settle all the business for all time to come. So in a sense, maybe THE big bang is a myth, and all the rest that goes with it (it does sound rather theological, doesn't it?) but to discard big bangs is to rash a discard of a very beautiful idea. It may be smoothed over, and lack some of the religious potency revolving around the idea, if the big bang was seen as more of an event in some succession based on deeper laws, than some singular happening of unknown origin and the only one of its kind. Such dynamics need have a way to account for a cause of the big bang, and also a way to trace back, through the use of evidence, how many more expansion events have happened to date.

Is our universe the only universe.
If it keeps expanding, will it eventually collide with another universe that's expanding too.

If you think of the expanding universe as a balloon, the content of the universe is not the volume inside the balloon getting bigger like a bubble. It is the surface of the balloon stretching as the balloon gets bigger. All existence is on the surface of this balloon.

No matter how much you blow up this balloon, there's nothing for it to run into because the balloon doesn't really exist, only the galaxies dotted on its surface and the space between them exists. The balloon just gets bigger, but there's nothing to run into because nothing other than the surface of this balloon exists.

The strict definition of this, and the Current (cosmological) Model, is flat, curved spacetime, ie. the surface of a balloon without the balloon itself existing.

You're thinking of the universe as a bubble. It's more like the skin of a bubble without the bubble, all existence is within the skin of the bubble.

Mind bending, isn't it? That's fourth dimensional spacetime for you. Even many perfectly qualified experts can't actually picture 4D-spacetime, instead they use 3D models with a series of thought-experiments confounding them with paradoxes.

eg. empty space has a pressure density called gravitation, it's caused by relative rates of time influenced by the presence of mass-energy, ie. when you walk faster you get heavier in the direction of travel, which causes the distance you are travelling to become shorter in excess of the speed at which you are negotiating it.
Motion warps space. Activity warps space. Energy is activity. An object is energy.
So, the universe is curved, flat spacetime.
The surface of a balloon without the balloon. No balloons to run into even if there were more than one, and if there were, they would
warp our space and so automatically be a part of our curved, flat spacetime, and the observable universe.


The multiverse theories are all about other dimensions, as in science fiction dimensions, not spatial ones like all the real (5) dimensions.

Here's an exercise, who can name the 5 dimensions? ;)
And, how is time a spatial dimension? :D

But we don't know that the ballon doesn't exist.
Basically we know nothing about it, it's all an educated guess.
Furthermore, we don't know if any other universes exist.
There could have been another big bang somewhere else.

This just made me think- Somehow multiple big bangs, but one eternal playing field, somehow connected, maybe by a history of evolution in some system, god, like the space doesn't matter or something. I doubt that is even what you mean, but that is what I got from your sensibility yo!

You have summed up my point.
Basically my guess is as good as yours or anyone else's.
I wonder if we will ever know the truth, because somewhere along the line some of our research and answers will be guess work.

.. all this time and energy . exerting yourself.. on the where. you come from.. you come from. dust you go back to dust.. its. a tightrope you walk along.. it has a beginning and A end...