Point/Counterpoint - BigBang/

[RascalPuff]

BB vs SteadyState

B. Dharwin to RascalPuff
4/9/07
Problem: There is no common - big bang - center from which the observed expanding universe expands. The expansion is astrophysically established as dynamically expanding in direct line of sight, from any location. This is not the signature of an explosion from a common center.
<<

That's not a problem for the Big Bang theory. It doesn't claim that there was anything like a conventional "explosion" (*It used to). Neither does it require there to have been a common center (*It used to). In BB cosmology, all points in space suffice equally for the center (*That's one of the renovations that have been applied to the Big Bang since it's inception - absorbing the dynamics of the <abandoned> cosmological constant).
It's also inaccurate to claim that it's not a theory. Like any good theory, it has made predictions, and these have been tested. It predicted the cosmic background radiation, and this was in fact found, supporting the theory (*Cosmic background radiation is applicable to any expanding universe scenario).

*RascalPuff to B. Dharwin
The two mainstays of Big Bang are Hubbles 'red shift' expanding universe, and 'cosmic background radiation'.
Recent observations find the so called big bang universe to be increasing in its rate of expansion. This is the signature of a repelling force acting across space, 'just like conventional gravity', except, in the opposite direction (preventing universal collapsation).

The big bang theory has evolved from having a common center, and a 'cause for the expansion' to elaborately sidestepping the formerly central issue of a common center, and apparently renovating the accumulating observations that the spatially expanding universe is picking up speed.
Background radiation was predicted by George Gamow in 1949 and (accidentally) proved in 1963, Gamow proclaimed that such radiation would contribute to a big bang theory. That proclamation is based on the premise that a universe of greater heat in the past reveals a 'big bang' universe.
Of the two mainstays, the first is being overtaken: by an expanding universe that is increasing in speed.
The second is a 'prediction' that background radiation is history of a big bang.
Background radiation indicates a relatively more dense universe at earlier times, explicable in more ways than the big bang. The observed, controversied background radiation is as much 'proof' of a physically (as well as spatially) expanding universe, that was more dense and hotter at earlier moments than it is at later moments, i.e., it appears that the presently abandoned Steady State and Cosmological Constant theories are overdue for reinstatement rather than absorption into the compromised Big bang.

B. Dharwin to Rascal Puff

I merely pointed out that the theory made a prediction, which was verified, and so it qualifies as a theory.
As for geometric "sidestepping", I see this as the weakest argument in the anti-Banger arsenal. Perhaps you've got an algorithm that maps every existing point in space back to the interior of a singularity, but I'd dearly love to see how it assigns one of these existing points in space the role of "center".
(*Lemaitre's original presentation featured an explosively beginning center)
This isn't to say that the universe doesn't have a geometric center. Wouldn't matter either way.

Rascal Puff to Buck Dharwin
The Big Bang has always been undone by having no common center. Presently it is yet again undone by the observations that the spatially expanding universe is accelerating.

The background radiation is more likely the result of an earlier, more dense steady state universe. A steady state (no beginning, no end) universe *sustains itself without the spontaneous creation of hydrogen: *when the physical universe is expanding, as well as being the cause of the spatially expanding universe, by way of the repelling force of the cosmological constant, originating out of all matter parallel to Newton's gravity, while acting in the opposite direction.
I am aware that many facets of Newton's gravity has been functionally abandoned, whereas 'the curvature of space' and 'geodesics' are explicable by way of the employment of the expansion of matter itself, corresponding with and the cause of the spatially expanding universe. As the status quo stands, Standard Theory is convinced that without the big bang, there is no explanation for the expanding universe.

I submit that the abandoned Cosmological Constant will be reinstated (instead of purloined), and that the 'curvature of space' will be reinterpreted, to accomodate a physically and spatially expanding universe. George Gamow's prediction of the finding of background radiation, along with the interpretation of what that means - desperate measures to explain Lemaitre's ad hoc innovative explanation for the unexpectedly discovered spatially expanding universe. Interpretations to replicate a justification for elevating 'the Big Bang' to a status of 'theory'.
20th century physics abounds with arbitrarily rejected proof of a physically expanding universe - re: http://delphi.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie 21st century physics embraces the big bang in a relationship untenable from its outset; foreordained to failure. The reinstatement of the Cosmological Constant is literally gaining on the Big Bang, via the observed increasing rate of expansion.

PuzzledCow to RascalPuff

+The reinstatement of the Cosmological Constant is literally gaining on the Big Bang, via the observed increasing rate of expansion.+
Not sure what your point is. The active process by which the expansion is supposed to accelerate is already a part of the big bang theory, be it under the name of "dark energy", "quintessence" or just "cosmological constant", or a combination of three different things - well, the state of the affair is unclear, but basically the big bang and the cosmological constant belongs to the same paradigm.

RascalPuff to PuzzledCow
The big bang commenced as an hypothesis based on 'red shift'. In 1949 Gamow predicted that background radiation should exist as a residual hangover from the big bang. Background radiation was detected in 1963 - hastily promoting the big bang to a theory status. Whereas, any expanding universe will inevitably be more dense in its past, as compared to the present, the presently abandoned steady state theory yields the same conclusion while the accelerating expansion of physical matter (in four dimensions) reinstates the steady state theory.

The big bang hypothesis evolved into a theory by way of a conceptually polarized, prejudiced interpretation of the cause of the measured background radiation. Since then the big bang premise has disconnected itself from the requirement of a center source from which it originates. Now furthermore proclaiming that the recently and unexpectedly discovered acceleration of the (spatially) expanding universe is caused by the emphatically hypothetical impetus of 'dark energy', 'quintessence' or just (pilfers and tailors the) 'cosmological constant' (culminating in what you offer as a 'combination of three different things'); which you proclaim as 'already a part of the big bang theory'. You go on to proclaim (of the newly and unexpectedly observed accelerating expansion of the universe) that "the state of the affair is unclear, but basically the big bang and the cosmological constant belongs to the same paradigm".
'Paradigm' in this usage is 'Standard Theory' (ST). The big bang has already arbitraily 'acquired' measured background radiation as alleged proof of itself - a more dense universe at an earlier time. On the other hand there is alternative explanation for predicatably dense microwave background radiation and that is the steady state theory; including the repelling force of the cosmological constant that accompanies it.

Whereas, reiterating your own words, "...well, the state of the affair is unclear, but basically the big bang and the cosmological constant (steady state theory) belongs (sic) to the same paradigm."
By this ungrounded proclamation do you mean that the (formerly abandoned) cosmological constant is interchangeable with the the hypothetical 'dark energy', 'quintessence' you speak of? The cosmological constant accompanies the steady state theory, and the steady state theory - including the accelerating expansion of (4-D) matter itself - is the rigidly ignored alternative to the big bang, which has embraced and displaced many of the characteristics of the steady state theory, while simultaneously rejecting it.
Is it your point to say that, if the expanding universe is accelerating, the (repeatedly reconstructed) big bang has it accounted for; by way of hypothesis and/or your unexplained reactivation of the cosmological constant or steady state theory?

[Cubola Zaruka]

The 2D surfaces of most 3D shapes do not contain their centres. The universe does not contain its centre either, since it is a non-euclidean geometry. It has only been measured as flat on a (by astronomic standards) small scale.

[Max™]

The Universe does not have a defined originating point, you could technically find a point which was equidistant from every part of the background radiation at some arbitrary moment, but it isn't like something amazing happened there.


The big bang happened where you are right now, and everywhere else.

I actually hate the term big bang, it was more like an unfolding if anything, unfurling, more like taking a folded bedsheet by one end and shaking it open before laying it across your bed, than an explosion as we know of them.

[jag]

The inward collapse of matter predicted by Einstein's
equations can account for Hubbles "red shift" expanding
universe, and "cosmic background radiation".

Roger Penrose's picture of a collapse of all matter
to a singularity is just as wrong as reversing
uncle Albert's equations in time and assuming a
singularity expanding to the universe we now see.

Since science doesn't even know what over 90% of the
universe is made of , making 'Big Bang' type theories
is not very usefully.

Maybe the LHC will give us some clues about that
other 90% of stuff and how it collapses into the stuff
we see. It sure as hell won't prove any "Big Bang"
nonsense.

The universe is way older than you think.

jag

[Unreal Zelta]

I always fail to see the inherent link between the age of the universe and its origins.

regards

Zelta

[jag]

I always fail to see the inherent link between the age of the universe and its origins.

regards

Zelta

Hi Zelta,

It's just a matter of perspective. To say it doesn't matter
how old the universe is, is like saying it doesn't matter
that we discovered the Milky Way does not contain the
entire universe.

The sooner we understand that the universe wasn't created
in an instant 13 billion years ago the sooner we can begin
to understand how the universe is being created.

jag

[Unreal Zelta]

the universe is being created

I assume the proclaimed expansion is the same as creation?

regards

Zelta

[jag]

I assume the proclaimed expansion is the same as creation?

regards

Zelta

Hi Zelta,

Yes.

We take all of the time from some infinitely distant past
until 13 billion years ago and push the fast forward
button and call it one thousandth of a second. That
makes no sense to me.

It was the same in the beginning as it is now. There
is no singularity; Just _ _IT happening.

jag