wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        general >> truth >> Big Bang
        
(Message started by: skeptic1000 on Apr 28th, 2008, 12:25pm)
Title: Big Bang
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 28th, 2008, 12:25pm
The scientific community seems to go back and forth with evidence that supports the Big Bang and with questions that seems to refute it. Here are some questions about the Big Bang that some would say make the current theory impossible. If anyone has any insight into these questions, or has any other questions that seem to disprove the Big Bang, please share...

(i) There should be an equal "quantity" of matter and anti-matter. Why can we not detect this abundance of anti-matter?

(ii) The current model for the origins of the universe demands the existence of an abundance of Population III stars. Why can we not find any?

(iii) The density of monopoles should be billions of times the critical density of our universe. Why have scientists failed to either detect or experimentally create a single one?

(iv) The Big Bang's model of an inflationary universe does not completely address the questions relating to horizon size and the inexplicably small deviations from flatness in spatial geometry just after the Big Bang.

(Items i-iv have been extracted from Sir Cols comments in the Creation vs. Evolution thread. Thank you, Sir Col)
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by towr on Apr 29th, 2008, 12:15am

on 04/28/08 at 12:25:41, skeptic1000 wrote:
(i) There should be an equal "quantity" of matter and anti-matter. Why can we not detect this abundance of anti-matter?
Well,  perhaps there shouldn't actually be an equal quantity of matter and anti-matter, and it's just a naive view that there should. It assumes the symmetry in creating matter/anti-matter can't be broken. Cosmologists and physicists have reasons to think that under conditions of the early universe matter and antimatter don't behave exactly the same, as a result of the electro-weak force acting differently on them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#antimatter


Quote:
(ii) The current model for the origins of the universe demands the existence of an abundance of Population III stars. Why can we not find any?
There's indirect evidence for them in gravitationally lensed far off galaxies. The problem is these kind of stars are from the earliest universe, uncontaminated by material ejected from supernovas. So consequently they are very far away (looking into the distance is looking back into time). They are also thought to have been a lot more massive than your average star, which means they burn up faster, which again makes them harder to find. But give it a decade or two; with automated stargazing and improving equipment, it's a matter of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_III_star#Population_III_stars


Quote:
(iv) The Big Bang's model of an inflationary universe does not completely address the questions relating to horizon size and the inexplicably small deviations from flatness in spatial geometry just after the Big Bang.
Maybe you're* using 'inflationary' here as different from the rapid inflation at the start of the universe which has been added onto big bang theory in the 1980's which solves exactly these problems. This rapid inflation flattens the universe out; and it means matter was in contact before it was blown out of proportion.
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm

*) Sir Col, in this case
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by JiNbOtAk on Apr 29th, 2008, 2:29am

on 04/28/08 at 12:25:41, skeptic1000 wrote:
.. or has any other questions that seem to disprove the Big Bang, please share...


Another question, which I think is just as interesting, is that why did the Big Bang happened ? And why did it happened at that particular point in time ? ( Of course, there may not be enough objective scientific evidence now to say actually why, but that had not stopped us before, right ? )
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by Sir Col on Apr 29th, 2008, 4:31am
As far as I can ascertain, question (i) still remains a complete challenge to modern Physics. The CPT (charge, parity, time) theorem demands a balance of matter vs antimatter. Any ideas relating to a non-zero baryon number would be pure speculation. The only two theories which carry any weight today are: (a) the universe prefers matter to antimatter, (b) the perfect initial symmetry was unbalanced by some inexplicable phenomena. The problem with any theories that support an imbalance have to explain the existence of something before nothing, which has greater dominance over all known matter and the "natural" laws of Physics. Sounds like God to me.  ::)

The fourth question was completely misquoted and is not a question at all. I said that in that thread that the inflationary universe model addresses the flatness problem and horizon problem. It doesn't, however, answer the question of the missing monopoles.

[edit]
I found this excellent article:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4a.html
[/edit]
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by towr on Apr 29th, 2008, 4:45am

on 04/29/08 at 02:29:18, JiNbOtAk wrote:
Another question, which I think is just as interesting, is that why did the Big Bang happened ?
Some drunk fratboys at meta-U thought they'd have a laugh and create a universe to play with. ;)


Quote:
And why did it happened at that particular point in time ? ( Of course, there may not be enough objective scientific evidence now to say actually why, but that had not stopped us before, right ? )
Considering the big bang is generally considered as the point where time and space start, it can't really happen at any time other than the beginning of time.
The question only really makes sense if the big bang wasn't the start of time and there was a before.
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by towr on Apr 29th, 2008, 5:15am

on 04/29/08 at 04:31:33, Sir Col wrote:
As far as I can ascertain, question (i) still remains a complete challenge to modern Physics. The CPT (charge, parity, time) theorem demands a balance of matter vs antimatter.
The standard model allows for ways to break CP symmetry. So it's not an absolute demand. Which isn't to say it's been cleared up what happened, because both know ways create either too great or too small an imbalance (if I take wikipedia's word for it).


Quote:
The problem with any theories that support an imbalance have to explain the existence of something before nothing, which has greater dominance over all known matter and the "natural" laws of Physics. Sounds like God to me.  ::)
I don't really see why that would have to be the case; but even if it were, it'd still be over 14 billion years ago and not 6000 ;)
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 29th, 2008, 5:56am
My favorite answer for "WHY is there something instead of nothing?" is that: Nothing is extremely unstable.
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by JiNbOtAk on May 1st, 2008, 6:27pm

on 04/29/08 at 04:45:45, towr wrote:
Some drunk fratboys at meta-U thought they'd have a laugh and create a universe to play with. ;)


Any objective scientific evidence of that ?  ;D
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by Azgard on May 3rd, 2008, 8:04pm
My grade 11 English teacher once told us that people believing in science and the Big Bang had one problem in explaining how the universe was created, and that was the beginning. Where did that beginning come from and what triggered it? What was there before the beginning of the universe?

I don't claim to know a ton about Big Bang (as I recall, I got that question wrong on my grade 9 science test...) or about God and religion, so feel free to tell me I'm missing something obvious, I'm okay with that.

My counter to my English teacher's question (although it did not come to me until 6 years later) was/is, if that is your main issue with the Big Bang, what was there before God?
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by rmsgrey on May 4th, 2008, 4:00am

on 05/03/08 at 20:04:32, Azgard wrote:
My counter to my English teacher's question (although it did not come to me until 6 years later) was/is, if that is your main issue with the Big Bang, what was there before God?


The problem of the first cause has troubled philosophers for thousands of years. There are essentially two possibilities: either the chain of causation leading back from the present stops at some un-caused event, or it goes back forever - with the same possibilities for what's been around - either at some point something appeared out of nothing, or there's always been something.

If there is a first cause, then you can call it God, or call it the Big Bang, depending on personal preference. If there's no first cause, then the problem of the beginning goes away, to be replaced by the problem of why the infinite chain of causation exists in the first place. And having an infinite chain doesn't rule out God - much of the chain could be internal to Him...
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by skeptic1000 on May 5th, 2008, 1:33pm

on 05/04/08 at 04:00:56, rmsgrey wrote:
If there is a first cause, then you can call it God, or call it the Big Bang, depending on personal preference.


Very sneaky, rmsgrey. I wouldn't just call it an arbitrary preference. I would say it's more like if you prefer evidence or if you prefer the lack of evidence.
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by towr on May 6th, 2008, 12:57am

on 05/05/08 at 13:33:32, skeptic1000 wrote:
Very sneaky, rmsgrey. I wouldn't just call it an arbitrary preference. I would say it's more like if you prefer evidence or if you prefer the lack of evidence.
At this point there is no possible evidence distinguishing one or the other. If you don't attribute more to the first cause than starting the universe; it really is arbitrary. At best you're choosing between a universe that has a determined fate, or a universe that is (to some extent) random but can still only take one actual path and is therefore indistinguishable from a determined universe.
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by Azgard on May 7th, 2008, 7:31pm
I wonder what my English teacher would say...
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by fizyka on Jan 11th, 2012, 8:37am
Big bang is pretty true, nowadays you can all explain with advanced physics:)
I know there is some problems in physics that we think they are unsolved and we have no idea how to solve them.... But one day we will answer these questions too, it's only a matter of time.... Maybe, just maybe some theories could be wrong, but we will see...

(Sometimes I thought that all the modern physics is too complicated to be true, but right now I really dont know - I dont know enough to decide what is true, so just accept what scientists says...)
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by rmsgrey on Jan 13th, 2012, 5:12pm
The universe (or what we can see of it) looks like it's the aftermath of a really big explosion - lots of bits all generally flying away from each other (once you look on large enough scales) - so it's a natural hypothesis that the universe actually is the aftermath of a really big explosion.

The main argument against there having been some form of "Big Bang" is the philosophical principle that the universe should have always existed more-or-less as we know it - a sort of arrogant humility that demands that there be nothing special about the period of time in which we find ourselves.

This is the same principle that says that everything in the larger universe looks to be moving away from us because it looks like that everywhere, rather than because we happen to be in the one galaxy that's at the actual center of the universe (hmmm... maybe the Oans have a point after all...), and is an important part of modern versions of the Big Bang, so it's not an unreasonable position to take.

On the other hand, you only have to count the number of habitable planets in our solar system (roughly one, depending on how you count Mars and Antarctica) to find an immediate violation of this principle of mediocrity...

Anyway, the idea that the entire visible universe and more was once packed into something roughly the size of a pea, that was in the process of exploding, and is still flying apart now, is fairly solidly established - it's possible that some other explanation may replace it in due course, but it would have to include a convincing explanation of why the universe happens to look very much like it came from a Big Bang. None of the known issues with the current cosmological model look like deal-breakers, so, barring surprises, they will get explained away without losing the underlying concept of the cosmic explosion...
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by Mariko79 on Apr 1st, 2013, 4:16am
I think that the creation of Universe is a big unknown secret....
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by Grimbal on Apr 1st, 2013, 12:07pm
Not a secret, a mystery.
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by goodRiddler on Nov 19th, 2013, 11:42pm
As humans we have very limited information and energy when compared to the universe so we will never be able to prove every aspect of the big bang. There will always be questions like this to answer.
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by martinly on Dec 2nd, 2013, 1:32am
Anyway, thanks for your sharing
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by bal on Apr 28th, 2014, 7:41am
If there wouldn't be more matter then we wouldn't exist.
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by alien2 on Apr 28th, 2014, 8:22am

on 04/28/14 at 07:41:28, bal wrote:
If there wouldn't be more matter then we wouldn't exist.

We don't exist. We are holograms.
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by JiNbOtAk on Apr 28th, 2014, 7:22pm

on 04/28/14 at 08:22:59, alien2 wrote:
We don't exist. We are holograms.


If that's true, somebody's got to teach me how to program a gorgeous holographic assistant for me.
Title: Re: Big Bang
Post by anglia on Aug 15th, 2015, 1:05am
Why did scientist researched for Big Bang? Why they titled it 'Big Bang'. They can give it another name.


Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board