What would cause you to rethink your position on "big bang" theory?

Status
Not open for further replies.

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I never claimed that they were the same thing! Sheesh. You guys twist my statements and meanings like a pretzel to suit yourselves. Nothing like tilting at windmills of your own making.
Your own words say it for you: "The electric current generate EM force!" and "... a magnetic field that is also part of the EM force."

Both simply wrong.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I was simply describing the posting style of your account. How you take it is your choice.

You simply chose to burn your own strawmen from time to time and you irrationally try to blame me for it. Hardly my fault.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Your own words say it for you: "The electric current generate EM force!" and "... a magnetic field that is also part of the EM force."

Both simply wrong.

Meh. It's sloppy verbiage for sure, but both statements are ultimately correct. The currents flowing through the plasma threads generate a magnetic field around the thread and the magnetic fields attract or repulse the magnetic fields of other threads. They also tend to evacuate the regions directly around the plasma threads, effectively insulating them from other plasma.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,854
3,888
✟273,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I never claimed that they were the same thing! Sheesh. You guys twist my statements and meanings like a pretzel to suit yourselves. Nothing like tilting at windmills of your own making.
mirror.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Meh. It's sloppy verbiage for sure, but both statements are ultimately correct. The currents flowing through the plasma threads generate a magnetic field around the thread and the magnetic fields attract or repulse the magnetic fields of other threads. They also tend to evacuate the regions directly around the plasma threads, effectively insulating them from other plasma.
Sloppy language is a product of sloppy thinking.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,647
11,692
54
USA
✟293,971.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What about the big bang model do you find attractive, and what might cause you to choose to "lack belief" in it?

First I have no faith to lose in the BB, as I don't "believe it", but rather accept the basic premise of the BB as given by observation.

Second, I think there is some confusion about what the BB model encompasses.

The BB model is a response to the observation that the universe is expanding (via the larger recession/redshift for more distant objects) and therefore must have been more compact, dense, and hotter in the past. Absent any source of "matter generation" the logical conclusion of the model is that the Universe was once extremely dense and hot, and perhaps existed as a "singularity" (though known physics breaks down before such a compression.)

Because of the high densities and temperatures we can predict from the BB model a few things:

1) That the universe was once hot enough that all atoms were ionized and therefore opaque. This means that at high enough redshift (far enough away) there is a "wall" of plasma through which we can't observe more distant photons. This is known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) since its redshift makes its appear as a 2.7 K blackbody, rather than the several thousand degrees it was.

The BB model predicts "a" CMB, but not the specifics since that would depend on the details of the cosmic expansion, matter contents, and density. The measurement of the observed 2.7K blackbody tells us (or constrains) some of those parameters.

2) That the initial elemental content of the universe was set by the cooling of the expanding universe. The projection backward of the BB expansion goes to temperature where nuclei are cannot be bound (and eventually, even baryons [neutrons and protons] cannot be exist). Known as Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), the assembly of simple nuclei from neutrons and protons is predicted by the BB model. The precise nature of it (exactly how much of each isotope is produced) is regulated by the properties of the expanding Universe (notably the baryon/photon ratio) and the details of nuclear physics. The exact ratio of H to He (for example) is not a general prediction of the BB model, but a property of our Universe and its specific properties. Currently, BBN fits well with a single value of the baryon/photon ratio, with a little "tension" remaining that may be the result of incomplete knowledge of nuclear physics, or the need to include interactions with other particles like neutrinos, some of which are only theoretical at this point.

3) That the planets, stars, and galaxies formed from the primordial gas of the cooling universe. The BB model does not specify the details of large-scale structure formation, galaxy formation, or star formation, but only lays down the basic conditions from which such theories must begin.


The BB model :

1) DOES NOT require or prohibit a phase of rapid inflation in the history of the universe;

2) DOES NOT require or prohibit a phase of slower acceleration (dark energy) later in the history of the universe;

3) DOES NOT specify the matter content of the Universe (baryon content, dark matter, etc.);

4) DOES NOT specify the nature of the laws of physics (Standard model, etc.), but the things it generates must follow those laws;

5) DOES NOT specify the cause or origin of the Universe, or whether their are other universes.


The currently favored cosmology (LambdaCDM) is a BB cosmology, but adds to the basic picture by including an early inflation phase, a specific baryon/photon ratio during BBN, "cold" non-baryon dark matter, and cosmological constant/vacuum energy "dark energy".

To the currently favored cosmology, evidence for the lack of dark energy or that it is some sort of consequence of the nature of space-time and any number of things would cause me to no longer accept the current model, likely in favor of a model that better explained things (particularly things we don't know yet).

As to the BB model itself, it is well established and supported just like the basic aspects of biological evolution theory and I consider it highly unlikely that it would fall from favor given the evidence behind it.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,647
11,692
54
USA
✟293,971.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
A note on Dark Matter:

It is important to note that we should think of DM as 3 different kinds that may, or may not be the same:

1) The astronomer's dark matter: This is the missing mass needed to explain the dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters. It seems to be largely non-interacting with light and is probably non-baryonic. (Some of it may be made of black holes and neutron stars but observations have limited the amount from stellar sized objects to a fairly small amount.)

2) The cosmologist's dark matter: This is the dark matter needed to make the cosmologies work out and replicate the large-scale structure. (the web of galaxy clusters) It can't be baryonic or it would alter BBN

3) The particle/theoretical physicists dark matter: These are experimentally sought stable particles that don't interact with photons and theorized particles that emerge from models that try to solve problems in particle physics. (The standard model is not complete.) They *hope* that some of their particles might be responsible for DM1/DM2.

DM1 and DM2 are probably the same, but we don't know that for sure.

DM3 may not exist in any quantity or may not be as stable as they propose.

The failure of particle physicists to find DM3 particles is not in any way a failure of astronomers and cosmologists, nor is the discovery of DM1/DM2 necessarily a failure of particle physicists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
First I have no faith to lose in the BB, as I don't "believe it", but rather accept the basic premise of the BB as given by observation.

Second, I think there is some confusion about what the BB model encompasses.

The BB model is a response to the observation that the universe is expanding (via the larger recession/redshift for more distant objects) and therefore must have been more compact, dense, and hotter in the past. Absent any source of "matter generation" the logical conclusion of the model is that the Universe was once extremely dense and hot, and perhaps existed as a "singularity" (though known physics breaks down before such a compression.)

Because of the high densities and temperatures we can predict from the BB model a few things:

1) That the universe was once hot enough that all atoms were ionized and therefore opaque. This means that at high enough redshift (far enough away) there is a "wall" of plasma through which we can't observe more distant photons. This is known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) since its redshift makes its appear as a 2.7 K blackbody, rather than the several thousand degrees it was.

The BB model predicts "a" CMB, but not the specifics since that would depend on the details of the cosmic expansion, matter contents, and density. The measurement of the observed 2.7K blackbody tells us (or constrains) some of those parameters.

2) That the initial elemental content of the universe was set by the cooling of the expanding universe. The projection backward of the BB expansion goes to temperature where nuclei are cannot be bound (and eventually, even baryons [neutrons and protons] cannot be exist). Known as Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), the assembly of simple nuclei from neutrons and protons is predicted by the BB model. The precise nature of it (exactly how much of each isotope is produced) is regulated by the properties of the expanding Universe (notably the baryon/photon ratio) and the details of nuclear physics. The exact ratio of H to He (for example) is not a general prediction of the BB model, but a property of our Universe and its specific properties. Currently, BBN fits well with a single value of the baryon/photon ratio, with a little "tension" remaining that may be the result of incomplete knowledge of nuclear physics, or the need to include interactions with other particles like neutrinos, some of which are only theoretical at this point.

3) That the planets, stars, and galaxies formed from the primordial gas of the cooling universe. The BB model does not specify the details of large-scale structure formation, galaxy formation, or star formation, but only lays down the basic conditions from which such theories must begin.


The BB model :

1) DOES NOT require or prohibit a phase of rapid inflation in the history of the universe;

2) DOES NOT require or prohibit a phase of slower acceleration (dark energy) later in the history of the universe;

3) DOES NOT specify the matter content of the Universe (baryon content, dark matter, etc.);

4) DOES NOT specify the nature of the laws of physics (Standard model, etc.), but the things it generates must follow those laws;

5) DOES NOT specify the cause or origin of the Universe, or whether their are other universes.


The currently favored cosmology (LambdaCDM) is a BB cosmology, but adds to the basic picture by including an early inflation phase, a specific baryon/photon ratio during BBN, "cold" non-baryon dark matter, and cosmological constant/vacuum energy "dark energy".

To the currently favored cosmology, evidence for the lack of dark energy or that it is some sort of consequence of the nature of space-time and any number of things would cause me to no longer accept the current model, likely in favor of a model that better explained things (particularly things we don't know yet).

As to the BB model itself, it is well established and supported just like the basic aspects of biological evolution theory and I consider it highly unlikely that it would fall from favor given the evidence behind it.

Thanks for your concise, informative, and lengthy response. I appreciate it (honestly). I particularly liked the fact that you carefully explained the key differences between generic "big bang" models, and the LCMD model. Nicely done.

I have a couple of comments and a couple of quick questions:

I believe I was careful not to suggest that anyone had "faith" to lose, but one must "choose" to either hold belief, or lack belief in the basic concept of a big bang, and or the LCMD model specifically. You seem to be "rewording" the concept of choice and belief a bit by claiming that you don't "hold belief", yet you also state that you
"accept the basic premise as given by observation". This is in spite of the fact that I specifically listed some important new observations in the OP that the LCDM model doesn't predict or tend to agree with.

It "seems" (please correct me if I'm wrong) like you're trying to circumvent the concept of "believing" (holding belief) in the big bang model by claiming to "accept" it and additionally accepting the concept that it matches observation or that it is supported by at least some observations if not all available observations. From my perspective it sounds like your acceptance is a form of "belief' along with the additional "belief" that it's supported/justified by observation. :)

The only "basic" observation that I'm aware of that supports the original big bang expansion model, as well as the LCDM model is photon redshift from observations in space which tend to suggest that objects that are further away from us are redshifted more than objects that are closer to us.

Edwin Hubble hypothesized and wrote about two different possible "interpretations" of that observation of redshift over distance, expansion and tired light, but even he ultimately chose the tired light explanation for redshift later in his career.

Hubble Eventually Did Not Believe in Big Bang: Associated Press

There is therefore an element of "personal choice" (which can change over time) that is associated with the "interpretation" of the cause of redshift that doesn't automatically imply expansion. It seems to me one chooses to "believe" (or hold belief) that redshift is caused by expansion, or that it's caused by "tired light".

I would argue that you "hold the belief" that expansion is the correct cause of redshift, whereas I personally "lack belief" that redshift is caused by expansion, and I "hold belief" that it's a plasma redshift phenomenon.

I really appreciate your explanation about the key differences between the big bang model itself and the LCDM model. Thanks for that. The important aspect of those differences from my perspective were points 3 and 4.

As the "big bang" model was taught to me in college (the LCDM model didn't yet exist), the term "dark matter" had no specific connotation in terms of it relating to any specific (non-baryonic) type of material. It therefore did not specify or require any specific laws of nature to be one way or another, and there was no conflict with the standard model of particle physics.

The LCDM requirement of a "non standard" model of particle physics however caused me some serious concerns which grew over time, particularly after the concept of "dark energy" was also added to the LCDM mix. Those two changes between big bang and LCDM caused me personally to "lack belief" in the LCDM model, even before holding any preference for any other cosmological interpretations. Today however my "beliefs" have changed some more, and I hold the belief that a static universe/tired light model is a "better" interpretation of the redshift observation, particularly after that spectacular failure of the expansion interpretation of redshift to predict the SN1A observations, and the maturity of objects observed at larger and larger redshifts.

I would argue that my "beliefs" simply changed over time, and I wouldn't try to suggest I didn't "hold belief" in the big bang model at one point in time. I would say that I did hold belief in it, and hold the additional belief that it was supported by redshift observations. I no longer hold such beliefs.

I therefore don't quite follow (or necessarily understand) your distinction between holding belief (or not) and "acceptance" of anything else related to the model.

Again, I very much appreciate the time you took to explain the differences between the big bang model and the LCDM model. That was very helpful and very informative.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,493
✟236,358.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
No, it's product of responding to these posts between tech calls at work and rarely getting the chance to proofread them. :)
That's a pretty fair definition of sloppy thinking: lack of focus, disinterest in accuracy, lack of respect for the reader, indifference to personal reputation. Thank you for the confession.
 
Upvote 0

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
What about the big bang model do you find attractive, and what might cause you to choose to "lack belief" in it?
I am not a physicist or cosmologist, but physicists and cosmologists seem to find it applicable. Like any "new" theory, one that replaces BBT must not only explain what the BBT explains, and do so better (odd phrasing, I know), but also explain things it doesn't.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I am not a physicist or cosmologist, but physicists and cosmologists seem to find it applicable. Like any "new" theory, one that replaces BBT must not only explain what the BBT explains, and do so better (odd phrasing, I know), but also explain things it doesn't.

Do you believe it's possible to falsify the existing model without having a "replacement"?

In other words, if the LCDM model is at odds with various observations (like those observations of mature objects at high redshift), is it reasonable in your opinion to choose to "lack/withhold belief" in the LCDM model without necessarily holding belief in any other particular model? Must there necessarily be a "new" model to replace it before choosing to "lack belief" in the old one?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

D.A. Wright

Stealth Defender Of Holy Writ
Supporter
Jul 18, 2019
664
306
59
Central PA
✟53,852.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I was simply describing the posting style of your account. How you take it is your choice.
Nah, it's pretty much a bona fide insult. If it were reported, the Mods would be gittin' with ya.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,411
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
....What about the big bang model do you find attractive, and what might cause you to choose to "lack belief" in it?
Lack of belief for me would follow lack of belief among a majority of qualified scientists.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Smithi
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Lack of belief for me would follow lack of belief among a majority of qualified scientists.

I can understand how that concept might appear to be useful, but....

Unfortunately science isn't really determined by majority opinion and the majority opinion is often wrong, particularly in the field of astronomy.

Aristarchus of Samos - Wikipedia

Ptolemy was certainly more 'popular' among "qualified scientists"/experts for something like 18 centuries after Aristarchus of Samos first proposed a heliocentric model. One could easily end up holding the wrong belief over their entire lifetime that way.

It's not like the expansion model has been particularly successful over the years at predicting new observations. For instance, the original expansion model predicted that the universe should be gradually slowing down over time. SN1A data was a massive shock to expansion proponents. It required the introduction of yet another ad hoc form of energy to salvage the expansion model, to the tune of 70 percent of the current expansion model, and the LCMD model *still* doesn't seem to jive with those massive and mature objects at high redshift.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,411
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I can understand how that concept might appear to be useful, but....

Unfortunately science isn't really determined by majority opinion and the majority opinion is often wrong, particularly in the field of astronomy.

Aristarchus of Samos - Wikipedia

Ptolemy was certainly more 'popular' among "qualified scientists"/experts for something like 18 centuries after Aristarchus of Samos first proposed a heliocentric model. One could easily end up holding the wrong belief over their entire lifetime that way.

It's not like the expansion model has been particularly successful over the years at predicting new observations. For instance, the original expansion model predicted that the universe should be gradually slowing down over time. SN1A data was a massive shock to expansion proponents. It required the introduction of yet another ad hoc form of energy to salvage the expansion model, to the tune of 70 percent of the current expansion model, and the LCMD model *still* doesn't seem to jive with those massive and mature objects at high redshift.
Not really interested in the errors of "science" prior to the 19th c. Too much reliance on "common sense" combined with limited naked-eye scale observation.

Nor am I, as an interested layperson, qualified to adjudicate between your view and the current orthodoxy. I do realize that science is somewhat institutionally conservative. But thats probably for the best on average. And if I'm caught out on the wrong side of an issue like this for a decade or two, its not that big of a deal.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Nah, it's pretty much a bona fide insult. If it were reported, the Mods would be gittin' with ya.
You may think so, I couldn't possibly comment ;)

I once quoted Churchill here and got a warning...

Incidentally, forum rules say not to discuss moderation ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.