Astronomical questions about the Big Bang

[EnemyPartyII]

1. Way less than enough.
2. A heck of a lot more.

In fact, I will accept your "wise" crack, since I am one of the very few here who ever admits being wrong.

However, not on this one.

By the way, what am I supposed about being mocked here? Do I challenge you to a duel? Tell you I am much better at some irrelevant skill like rhetoric or bar fighting? Do I argue about your grasp of the Gospel? What?

Way less than enough,m and a heck of a lot more, sound like objective, empirical terms to anyone else?

 

[Citanul]

Not at all. We simply differ on whether there are in fact different measures of probability.

Are we talking about the same thing here? Probability is the chance that something is likely to happen or be the case, and can take on a value between 0 and 1, with 0 indicating that it is impossible and 1 that it will always happen.

Since the Big Bang is an event that may or may not have happened, it's possible to talk about the probability that the Big Bang occurred, which you did when you said "The enormous unlikelihood of BB is measured in terms of statistical absurdities."

Now that statement claims that the probability of the Big Bang occurring can be calculated. All I'm asking for is an indiction of how it would be possible to calculate that probability.

 

[Deamiter]

I'll have to partially side with busterdog on this one. We know what to expect if dark matter exists with the properties that have been suggested, and in the next year a major gamma-ray telescope will be launched by NASA to verify or disprove the predictions. However, because it hasn't been well measured to date, there are a number of similar but very different models that will only be thinned in number as we collect more data.

I do wonder, however, what you (busterdog) will conclude if one of these models is shown to accurately predict dark matter. It's not as if scientists are randomly throwing out numbers to see if some stick -- their models have to first explain everything seen today and THEN make predictions about the dark matter. Anyway, when we have better observations of dark matter (yes, it has been observed though not in detail) and if scientists can show how it is 'enough' for the Big Bang wouldn't that verify their model over your model that apparently claims that there is not enough?

I will disagree with busterdog over probability calculations though. One can only construct a probability of some event if they know the probability of every possible event or can reasonably estimate the probability of those events. The probability of proteins folding as they do is astronomically unlikely... until you factor in the fact that they fold to stable states with minimum energy. Until we can somehow measure conditions outside of the universe (which, depending on your definition of universe may be impossible) trying to calculate a probability of the Big Bang is useless. I mean, for all we know, each and every value of each and every constant could be ANY number with equal probability... which would mean that the probability of the universe existing with these values would be 1/infinity. Of course, isn't it equally possible that the current values are simply analygous to a 'lowest energy state' in folding proteins and it's incredibly unlikely that the values are different?

In the end, until our assumptions are based on evidence, trying to produce probability calculations based on those assumptions is a bit silly.

 

[busterdog]

Deamiter,

The idea of measuring a volume of dark matter is a bit difficult for me to imagine. Perhaps regional denisities. But the uniformitarian (if you will excuse the expression) assumptions would seem pretty bold.

That being said, I would look for a way to wiggle out of it at all costs, since that is my prejudice, quite honestly. I look for both honest and dishonest inclinations when tyring to understand a problem, and that one is what comes to mind about how that "discovery" might play here in Peoria.

I was noodling around on the CMB prediction and looking at what was predicted versus what was observed. I saw some pretty varried predictions. I am not sure how this planets rather narrow window on the anisometries gives as much confidence as it does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

I wasn't clear on the point about probability, though I do agree the calculations 1 over infinity is a meaningless exercise, except to acknowledge its limited meaning. Probably that is the more important observation about the BB problem -- ie, what happens when we go from unknowable physical laws to recognizeable physical laws. The presumption that a calculation can be made is again, quite bold.

However, the math that is actually attempted on the beryllium problem and fine tuning is also interesting, since it suggests long odds for the processes existing after our recognizeable physical laws come into being.

 

[KerrMetric]

My God - you're still prattling on about a "beryllium problem" when that has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang at all.

This thread is sad.

By the way - the Big Bang has also nothing to do with dark matter. Also - fine tuning is an after the fact concept.

 

[Deamiter]

Deamiter,

The idea of measuring a volume of dark matter is a bit difficult for me to imagine. Perhaps regional denisities. But the uniformitarian (if you will excuse the expression) assumptions would seem pretty bold.

Why would it be difficult for you to imagine? It certainly takes more complex technology to measure (i.e. gamma-ray telescopes rather than a bath tub) but it's really not that different from measuring other forms of matter. I honestly have no idea what assumptions you're refering to or why they'd have anything to do with assumptions of uniformitarity (is this your new catch-all phrase for everything you disagree with in place of the outdated 'evolution?')

I was noodling around on the CMB prediction and looking at what was predicted versus what was observed. I saw some pretty varried predictions. I am not sure how this planets rather narrow window on the anisometries gives as much confidence as it does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Yes, the observation of the anisotropic CMB certainly refined the understanding of the Big Bang models, but the real victory was that physicists predicted the existance of ripples based on their model (the Big Bang) before the ripples were discovered. As you said, you do your best to wiggle out of everything that you don't like, but you've never made a single prediction of what will be found that can be falsified (and thus your 'model' is rather useless).

Similarly, models of dark matter predict that it should emit gamma radiation in a particular pattern if the models that predict its existance are correct. In the next year those predictions will be tested. Why don't you (or ANYBODY really) develop a model now that makes similar predictions about what will be found BEFORE the measurements are taken? Why go to all the effort of wiggling out later when you can make predictions and have your model verified (or falsified)?

Of course, I understand that you're a lay-person and could never develop such a model even if you wanted to (neither could I without a dozen years of study and at least as many grad students) but this is how science works and why it has been so successful. If you want to convince people that your model is correct, develop it in detail to predict the results of measurements that have not yet been taken. Don't just explain what we have -- always reacting to the latest finds as creationists are so prone to do. Go on the offensive and make a falsifiable prediction or stop wiggling so hard when scientists put their credibility on the line time and time again to show the predictive value of their explanations of God's creation!

However, the math that is actually attempted on the beryllium problem and fine tuning is also interesting, since it suggests long odds for the processes existing after our recognizeable physical laws come into being.

Haven't we explained why the amount of beryllium in the universe is not a problem? Scientists have explained the current measurements and it's only when you refuse to learn these models that you can continue to believe that beryllium is somehow a problem. Is it that you wouldn't have enough room to wiggle if you listened when people told you how this is explained by scientists (and thus might lose your faith in Christ altogether) because I wouldn't want to challenge your faith just to let you know how the amount of beryllium in the universe can be explained by something other than "God must have wanted it that way."

 

[busterdog]

As you said, you do your best to wiggle out of everything that you don't like, but you've never made a single prediction of what will be found that can be falsified (and thus your 'model' is rather useless).

Actually, no. What I said is that I recognize the prejudice exists and try to deal with it.

I don't have a model. I just like to monkey-wrench the conventional model.

Occasionally I also have the urge to just put up frivolous threads so Kerr can chase his tail. However, I have not intentionally pursued that temptation.

I do however, hand TEs straight lines, which they almost always assume are not intentional.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Actually, no. What I said is that I recognize the prejudice exists and try to deal with it.

I don't have a model. I just like to monkey-wrench the conventional model.

Occasionally I also have the urge to just put up frivolous threads so Kerr can chase his tail. However, I have not intentionally pursued that temptation.

I do however, hand TEs straight lines, which they almost always assume are not intentional.

So... you are basically admitting you don't have an improved model, you're just being obtuse for the hell of it?

 

[shernren]

I needn't deal in quantities. The fine tuning of the BB energies requires a quantity of BB that has been modeled, but never measured. It is only this year that any quantity at all has been allegedly detected.

If there is hubris in rejecting the modeling that has been done, I don't have a problem with that.

I am reacting to big crunch, big tear and the tremendous uncertainty that has been admitted for the entire model. This is open to widely divergent debate because the quantities have been modeled, but aren't measured.

"I needn't deal in quantities" about the Big Bang? Next thing you know, the flood geologists will say they don't need to look at rocks at all to prove that they're right.

The interesting thing about this whole kerfuffle is that the first context in which dark matter was conjectured and detected had nothing to do with the Big Bang at all. So why does it pose any difficulty for the Big Bang? If we were to reject the Big Bang theory tomorrow we would still keep dark matter around, for it explains a lot else.

 

[KerrMetric]

"
The interesting thing about this whole kerfuffle is that the first context in which dark matter was conjectured and detected had nothing to do with the Big Bang at all. So why does it pose any difficulty for the Big Bang? If we were to reject the Big Bang theory tomorrow we would still keep dark matter around, for it explains a lot else.

Exactly.

The reason is because some folk want to grasp at any perceived straw so as to argue against something they patently haven't a clue about.

That is exactly what is going on in this thread.

Neither dark matter or some supposed beryllium problem are in any way associated with Big Bang theory - it's just a couple of buzz words that Busterdog has latched onto coupled with no understanding of cosmology that leads to nonsense.

 

[busterdog]

So... you are basically admitting you don't have an improved model, you're just being obtuse for the hell of it?

Modelling is best for selling hayfever medicine on the weather channel.

I have been admitting the lack of an improved model for some time now.
Actually, what I do kind of enjoy is a well written post that is taken to be obtuse. Confirming expections, even the unpleasant ones, does restore one's sense of order in the universe.

 

[shernren]

Is that an admission that you accept that dark matter is not a problem for the Big Bang?

 

[busterdog]

Is that an admission that you accept that dark matter is not a problem for the Big Bang?

No. I stil think it is evidence that the BB equation is not complete.

This goes to the value of modeling. It certainly can't be essential if BB depends upon such enormous assumptions.

There have been enormous swings in opinion regarding the fate of the universe, much of it concerning how much dark matter there is -- ie, are we looking at a big crunch or a big tear?

All of this makes it hard to view BB as a likelihood. Let's say its chances of being right may be one in a thousand. If all the others are one in ten thousand, BB still has problems being seen as a likelihood. Again, this has to do with the value of modeling in the first place. It may be the best thing going, but the best for what purposes?

 

[shernren]

Cute. Do you have any argument or reason to believe that the actual amount of dark matter in the universe is not equal to the amount that we observe from cosmological observations? And that any such discrepancy is a flaw in Big Bang theory?

 

[busterdog]

Cute. Do you have any argument or reason to believe that the actual amount of dark matter in the universe is not equal to the amount that we observe from cosmological observations? And that any such discrepancy is a flaw in Big Bang theory?

There is no "amount we observe", except arguably in narrow sections of the sky, thus the recent news on the subject..

It may be inferred, if you accept the BB model, but it has not been measured.

Interesting article:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/05/23/max-tegmark-cosmology-tech-cx_07rev_mh_0524tegmark.html

Now Tegmark, a Sweden-born researcher who splits his time between theory and experiment, argues that collecting still more measurements could provide us with real answers to some of the most mysterious--and mind-bending--puzzles in physics. Prominent among these puzzles is the problem of invisible, mysterious stuff--so-called "dark energy" and "dark matter."
Simplistically stated, if the laws of physics as we know them are correct, the vast majority of the universe--some 96% of it, in fact--consists of this stuff. Tegmark's ambition is nothing less than to map and measure the entire universe, including the "dark" bits. Current theory can describe the whole universe with 32 mathematical variables. Tegmark's strategy is to measure these variables as precisely as possible.
Ultimately, Tegmark hopes to create a map of all the hydrogen in the universe, not just the stuff in stars but all the gas that's just sitting there. The hope is that by making very exacting measurements, it will be possible to see gravity--and "dark energy"--at work.

Here's another one:

http://www.exduco.net/news.php?id=1603

 

[shernren]

Why was dark matter first hypothesized?

 

[busterdog]

Why was dark matter first hypothesized?

Dark matter was first hypothesized to exist by the Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky. In 1933 Zwicky estimated the total amount of mass in a cluster of galaxies, the Coma Cluster, based on the motions of the galaxies near the edge of the cluster. When he compared this mass estimate to one based on the number of galaxies and total brightness of the cluster, he found that there was about 400 times more mass than expected. The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some other form of matter existent in the cluster which we have not detected, which provides enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.

Danger Will Robinson. Do you really want me to go all Russ Humphries on you?

I don't think that will help either of us.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3530/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/hubble.asp

Here is a creationist article that is perhaps a bit more balanced in its criticism:

http://www.evangelical-anjar.org/astromania/My%20Webs/mywebs/astromania/essays/current_state_of_creation_astron.htm

Just note that I am lumping the galaxy rotation issue together with the the hubble model of expansion. I see them as very closely related. And regardless of the first reason to look at missing mass, the presence of dark matter of course figures in the equation by which the expansion of stuff in the BB explosion is modelled. If you are not clear on what the fate of the universe is, ie, big rip or big crunch, how do can you become confident about an origins cosmology?

I am tempted to post the Setterfield proposal on the matter just to provoke you all. But, I am trying to behave.

 

[shernren]

Good. Short questions = clear answers. Must remember that.

Just note that I am lumping the galaxy rotation issue together with the the hubble model of expansion. I see them as very closely related.

How are they related?

And regardless of the first reason to look at missing mass, the presence of dark matter of course figures in the equation by which the expansion of stuff in the BB explosion is modelled. If you are not clear on what the fate of the universe is, ie, big rip or big crunch, how do can you become confident about an origins cosmology?

If I can't remember what will happen tomorrow, how can I become confident about remembering what happened yesterday?

I am tempted to post the Setterfield proposal on the matter just to provoke you all. But, I am trying to behave.

The "enough calculus to learn how quasar data falsify c-decay" offer is still on the table, given how light my workload still is.

 

[busterdog]

Good. Short questions = clear answers. Must remember that.

How are they related?

Both involve the hubbel model of expansion in terms of age and inertia.

If I can't remember what will happen tomorrow, how can I become confident about remembering what happened yesterday?

That's the problem.

The "enough calculus to learn how quasar data falsify c-decay" offer is still on the table, given how light my workload still is.

I thought it was a pulsar and whsn't setterfield's answer that it posed a very interesting problem, but that he wasn't happy with the idea of a convincing model for what the pulsar was in the first place?

 

[shernren]

So you're telling me that if a man can't remember what's going to happen tomorrow, that's good reason to doubt his memories of what happened yesterday?

Do you remember what will happen to you tomorrow?

I thought it was a pulsar and wasn't setterfield's answer that it posed a very interesting problem, but that he wasn't happy with the idea of a convincing model for what the pulsar was in the first place?

Yes indeed, but pulsars have been well-modeled, and though we are a bit fuzzy about the internal structure at times, we understand very well the particular mechanisms that cause us to observe them and that cause their periodicity.

Anyways. How, specifically, does one incorporate the Hubble expansion into a consideration of galactic structures?