The Big Bang Theory

[akscience]

PROBLEMS WITH BIG-BANG NUCLEOSYNTHESIS? A long with the expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background, the most prominent artifact of the big bang is the synthesis of several species of light nuclei, namely D, He-4, He-3, and Li-7, only seconds after the explosion. Cosmologies which make predictions of the amount of early nucleosynthesis must account for the present-day abundances of these nuclei, consisting of the primordial inventory plus any that may have been manufactured (or destroyed) in the cores of stars. Measurements (particularly of He-4) have improved over the years to such an extent that various theories can now (or soon) be put to the test. Not only are cosmological theories at stake but various features of the standard model of particle physics. For example, the more species of "light" neutrinos (meaning neutrinos which are massless or nearly so; particle theory suggests three species: electron, muon, and tau) there are, the faster the early universe would have expanded, leaving behind more neutrons, which in turn would lead to a larger amount of He-4. Although the measurement uncertainties are still considerable, the observed abundances of He-4 and D seems to be at odds with the main big bang model. Two groups, publishing papers in Physical Review Letters, 27 November 1995, assess this discrepancy. One group (N. Hata et al.; contact Gary Steigman, Ohio State, 614-292-1999) suggests that although the data might be at fault, one or more factors, maybe betokening "new physics," might be at work. An example of this would be a tau neutrino with considerable mass. The other group (Craig J. Copi et al.; contact David Schramm, University of Chicago, 312-702-8202), however, suggests that within the uncertainties the data and the standard theory are still consistent with each other. (Journalists can obtain copies of the articles from AIP Public Information; physnews@aip.org) Thanks too:http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1995/split/pnu247-1.htm

And this is a good site about why the big bang THEORY has no weight
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html

 

[Arikay]

One thing to point out, the Big Bang wasnt an explosion.

 

[akscience]

Arikay, please explain to me then. I know that matter being condensed under pressure to create a outward force is called an explosion. Correct me though, but the first matter got consended under pressure and created this outward force (EXPLOSTION)

 

[Arikay]

The Big Bang was an Expansion of SpaceTime (space itself) and energy. It was an expansion and not a conventional explosion.

Arikay, please explain to me then. I know that matter being condensed under pressure to create a outward force is called an explosion. Correct me though, but the first matter got consended under pressure and created this outward force (EXPLOSTION)

 

[akscience]

Of space itself you say, okay, fine, whats space, whats it made of, where did the matter come from. You tell me it had a beginning in the above response, telling me to assume there was a time where it didnt exsist??? And you say the energy expanded, well how, something had to trigger it, what was it???

 

[Arikay]

Space is space. Its what matter exists in. It can also be distorted. The most common example of space is the rubber sheet example, to explain basic gravity.

Since is was an expansion of Spacetime (both space and time) there was no "time" that we can measure when the universe didnt exist, because the big bang created the spacetime we measure in. Matter came from the energy, as it cooled it formed together and started forming different particles and ended up forming what we know as matter. Its interesting to note that the cosmic Background radiation is thought to come from 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

I dont know what triggered it. Since the Big Bang created SpaceTime itself, currently we cant measure anything beyond the Big Bang. This is where you start to step into philosophy and out of science. God could have done it.

Beyond the basics im not that great with the Big Bang and should probably read up on it more.

I might suggest if you want more info, a good starter would be to look up the Big Bang, and The theory of Relativity. Along with Hawkings two new smaller, illustrated books (I really like them, illutrastions are your friend )

Of space itself you say, okay, fine, whats space, whats it made of, where did the matter come from. You tell me it had a beginning in the above response, telling me to assume there was a time where it didnt exsist??? And you say the energy expanded, well how, something had to trigger it, what was it???

 

[akscience]

I have read Stephen Hawkins books, though not the illustrated ones, my bad, lol. I think he is an awesome thinker, but i bit far out there. I've studied his books in college and some of my own personal readings of his not published. You say "Matter came from the energy, as it cooled it formed together and started forming different particles and ended up forming what we know as matter". That sounded good, yet a problem still exsists about where did the energy come from to create this matter. Matter cant create without anything to work with, energy makes it, yes, but still needs something to work on. Energy isnt something that just appears out of no where, it must be created or used. For example, take a watch, everything is there for it to work, but you need something to whind it up, an outside force. Man has to physically whind the watch up for it to work, same concept applies here, intelligent design is obviously noticed here. In addition to all the other problems facing this theory as mentioned in my earlier thread.

 

[Jet Black]

Of space itself you say, okay, fine, whats space, whats it made of, where did the matter come from. You tell me it had a beginning in the above response, telling me to assume there was a time where it didnt exsist??? And you say the energy expanded, well how, something had to trigger it, what was it???

energy conservation is a consequence of the symmetry of time (Quantum mechanically this can be proved)

now normally I won't talk about Quantum Mechanics and the big bang in one breath like this, but the big bang is not time symmetric (it doesn't look the same in both directions, since in one direction it begins, and in the other it ends), so energy conservation may not need to apply.

 

[Jet Black]

I have read Stephen Hawkins books, though not the illustrated ones, my bad, lol. I think he is an awesome thinker, but i bit far out there. I've studied his books in college and some of my own personal readings of his not published. You say "Matter came from the energy, as it cooled it formed together and started forming different particles and ended up forming what we know as matter". That sounded good, yet a problem still exsists about where did the energy come from to create this matter. Matter cant create without anything to work with, energy makes it, yes, but still needs something to work on. Energy isnt something that just appears out of no where, it must be created or used. For example, take a watch, everything is there for it to work, but you need something to whind it up, an outside force. Man has to physically whind the watch up for it to work, same concept applies here, intelligent design is obviously noticed here. In addition to all the other problems facing this theory as mentioned in my earlier thread.

physically, what you have said makes very little sense, I am sorry.... "Matter can't create without anything to work on"... can't create what? matter doesn't create things.... do you mean matter can't be created? and what do you mean by work on?

incidentally, ignore Hawkings... most of what he says is wrong.

 

[Arikay]

I like the Illustrations as they are nice to help get the basic idea accross, they make more sense.

Im not sure where the energy came from (hmm, more research ) However, the universe came about in its most energetic form, Although the analogy doesnt quite fit, you could say that after the Big Bang, the universe was as wound up as it would get.

Im not sure what you mean when you say "Matter cant create without anything to work with, energy makes it, yes, but still needs something to work on." can you explain this more?

Im also not sure what you mean about other problems facing this theory, as it seems many of the problems are based on a misunderstanding of the theory.

I have read Stephen Hawkins books, though not the illustrated ones, my bad, lol. I think he is an awesome thinker, but i bit far out there. I've studied his books in college and some of my own personal readings of his not published. You say "Matter came from the energy, as it cooled it formed together and started forming different particles and ended up forming what we know as matter". That sounded good, yet a problem still exsists about where did the energy come from to create this matter. Matter cant create without anything to work with, energy makes it, yes, but still needs something to work on. Energy isnt something that just appears out of no where, it must be created or used. For example, take a watch, everything is there for it to work, but you need something to whind it up, an outside force. Man has to physically whind the watch up for it to work, same concept applies here, intelligent design is obviously noticed here. In addition to all the other problems facing this theory as mentioned in my earlier thread.

 

[akscience]

Okay, i love Illustrations too, but thats expensive, the book is like 20 dollars more than just the writing, lol.
You said: However, the universe came about in its most energetic form, whats an explosion, is it energy, i believe it is, you also said the universe was wound up as much as it could get, well, i know alot of people have of problem with Entropy of the Universe Increases, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, or The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases. Well, then the universe would be winding down, not creating new stuff, scientists have NO energy source to keep the second law of thermodynamics going.

 

[Jet Black]

One question that I have.

If SpaceTime (well, time) expanded with the bigbang, then is it possible that there is no actual moment when the universe began? Since Time as we know it was created during the big bang, then trying to put a pin point on when it started would be impossible. So if the begining of the universe wasnt part of time, then could there have been an infinite (or lack of) amount of time before the big bang happend since time (as we know it) was not created yet?

The question might be rather confusingly worded, but hopefully it all makes sense.

effectively yes. if one looks at General Relativity, then as you approach a singularity, space and time become more and more mixed up, until at the singularity itself, the whole concept of time means nothing. I will use black holes as a slight analogy here; the event horizon is well known as the point from which nothing can escape a black hole, but there is an additional subtlety here. at the EH, one loses all control over space and time, and as such, the "future" is equivalent to the centre of the black hole, and time has no real meaning in this sense anymore. regarding "external*" to the big bang... well it is impossible to say, and empirically it always may be, unless we come up with some theory as to how universes are born. however I did make another related comment on the irrelevance of energy conservation if time symmetry does not exist.

 

[Arikay]

Again, it wasnt an explosion, it was an expansion.

Many people also dont understand the 2LoT or entropy. The universe is winding down, and creating new stuff at the same time. The 2LoT doesnt say new or very complex stuff cant be made. Just that you can never end up with more energy than you put into it. Often condenced to "you can't break even"

Okay, i love Illustrations too, but thats expensive, the book is like 20 dollars more than just the writing, lol.
You said: However, the universe came about in its most energetic form, whats an explosion, is it energy, i believe it is, you also said the universe was wound up as much as it could get, well, i know alot of people have of problem with Entropy of the Universe Increases, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, or The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases. Well, then the universe would be winding down, not creating new stuff, scientists have NO energy source to keep the second law of thermodynamics going.

 

[Jet Black]

Okay, i love Illustrations too, but thats expensive, the book is like 20 dollars more than just the writing, lol.
You said: However, the universe came about in its most energetic form, whats an explosion, is it energy, i believe it is

what is energy?

 

[Jet Black]

Again, it wasnt an explosion, it was an expansion.

Many people also dont understand the 2LoT or entropy. The universe is winding down, and creating new stuff at the same time. The 2LoT doesnt say new or very complex stuff cant be made.

what do you mean by "creating new stuff" stuff is reorganised, but nothing is created.

 

[Arikay]

Good point, thanks for the correction. I ment creating new structures or objects that werent around before. Like the creation of a star. But I guess a better word for it would be forming, as in reorganising.

what do you mean by "creating new stuff" stuff is reorganised, but nothing is created.

 

[akscience]

How do you know that the universe is not gaining energy with the creation of new stars, and i understand vis vera how do you know its losing energy?

 

[Jet Black]

How do you know that the universe is not gaining energy with the creation of new stars, and i understand vis vera how do you know its losing energy?

because new stars form under gravity. anything else would be violation of energy conservation.

energy is not being lost either, because that would also be violation of energy conservation.

 

[Jet Black]

Good point, thanks for the correction. I ment creating new structures or objects that werent around before. Like the creation of a star. But I guess a better word for it would be forming, as in reorganising.

no problem I just find that "creating" is a very loaded word in science/religion debates, and not to be used lightly