-kalados

-kalados
Kalados,

The Big Bang Theory comes from Prof Lemaitre, of the University of Louvain, in our Little Belgium. In his days, the 1920's, the Relativity theory was "in". Lemaire,and many others, believed the velocity of light was a universal constant and the observed red shifts of stars were Doppler effects. At that time the Milky Way was the only known Galaxy and the observed red shifts were modest.

But know,nearly a century later, the observed red shifts are much larger and there are many arguments against that theory:

1) It is a fact the velocity of light is a function of gravity. The observed red shifts are not a consequence of Doppler effects alone and the world is probably much older than the actual estimations of some billions of years.

2) If the BB theory were true, and if the physical laws existed from the beginning, it is impossible to explain the actual distribution of matter and velocities in space. By actual ballistic theories the projectiles in space should have been fired at different moments, not with a single explosion .

3) By this theory the locus of the BB should have been were we are now. Scientist say :"This is suspect"

4) The fact, that by attributing the redshift to Doppler effect alone the velocities are exactly
proportional to distance, seems suspect also.

5) The center of mass of the universe should not move. After the BB all projectiles should have decelerated.Starting from actual velocities we can deduce the velocities a million or a billion of years ago. These velocities should have been many times the velocity of light, which is impossible.

Therefore I am pretty sure there has never been a Big Bang . My advize: choose another project.

Morp

"It is a question of cubic capacity." -Sherlock Holmes

[/quote

Psyber,

What has Background Radiation to do with Big Bang? I read somewhere Background Radiation is a "remnant" of the BB. But if the BB was a kind of nuclear explosion radiating EM energy like gamma rays etc. this EM energy should now be farther away than anything else. Why can we observe it ? It is cheap to say " BR it is a remnant of BB".

What would you say if someone else says the Background Radiation is originated now, continuously, everywhere deep in space ?

Morp.

There really isn't any "proof" that the Big Bang existed. However, there is evidence to suggest the BB occurred. These are what have come to be known as, "The Four Pillars of Cosmology."

You can read a brief non-mathematical description here:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html.

Abundance of elements in the universe, especially carbon etc.
Insufficient mass for gravitational redshifting.
Errors in the steady state model: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
Cosmic microwave background anistrophy (ie different strength from different directions):
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

quote:

---

I personaly do not agree with the big bang theory because of a certain scientific law that exists. This law is known as The Law of Conservation of Matter, which states that matter can not be created or destroyed under ordinary circumstances.

---

A further development is in the postulation of vacum energies - nothing can have energy. So matter can be created from nothing.

jtk,

For a large part I agree with you.
I think also there is a solution for scientists, who defend the BB because it is for them the only alternative to believing in God.
Aristotle said, like you, no matter can be created or destroyed. Because of that the world had never been created and had always existed.

At least it is difficult to contradict this hypothesis on scientific or religious grounds.

Morp.

No one is claiming the big bang was the creation of energy from nothing. Even models of the universe emerging from the vacuum do not claim this, so it's not a good reason to discard a theory as good as the BBT.

Gravitational potential, and kinetic energy have opposite signs. One is to be taken as negative and the other as positive, in order that energy be conserved (i. e. change sum to zero) in isolated gravitational systems.

Then if the universe started small, with little matter, it would have had little anergy of either kind, and their sum would be - zero! As it grew, both forms of energy increase, but their sum remained zero, and it remains zero today.

The theory does not make any guesses as to where the hot ball of energy came from or what there was before this hot ball of energy... it only postulates that there was a hot ball of energy that exploded.

Hurky

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
Try using paragraphs. It makes things MUCH easier to read.... and welcome to PF!

quote:

---

I personaly do not agree with the big bang theory because of a certain scientific law that exists. This law is known as The Law of Conservation of Matter, which states that matter can not be created or destroyed under ordinary circumstances.

---

And ladies and gentlemen, can I introduce Einstein to the scene!
The law of conservation of matter was sadly destroyed a century ago by the little equation simplified to E = mc^2
Heard of nuclear weapons?

A further development is in the postulation of vacum energies - nothing can have energy. So matter can be created from nothing.

-------------
"....this will be one battle we will regret. Mark my words..."
FZ 11/14/2002

---

Error 1:

Einstein's equation does not contradict the law of energy conservation, but in fact is a further proof to that. It only rephrases this conservation law, it must read the conservation of energy and matter. Matter can be transformed into energy and vice versa.

Error 2:

The vacuum genese does not realy break the conservation of matter and energy law. There are mere quantum fluctuations, which means that there is the possibility for a little amount of energy to exist, and to create a particle-anti-particle pair that annihilates directly after it's creation, and which gives back the "borrowed" amount of energy.

It still doesn't say that matter can be created from nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jtkelectroguy:
There is a lot of evidence that suggests that the Big Bang occured. Many scientists believe that there was a large ball of condensed matter that became unstable and then this ball of matter exploded and are Universe finally began to form. Scientists believe that all of the matter in the Universe was hydrogen at one time. They believe that as the hydrogen gass started to swirl around, heat started to biuld up and this would finally initiate nuclear fusion of two hydrogen nuclei which would produce helium 4. Scientists believe that as larger stars started to use up the last of there hydrogen, the star itself would reach temeratures that would make it possible to fuse helium 4 also, The fusion of helium 4 would result in the production of heavyer elements which would also fuse together and form more elements. This process definetally accounts for the production of all the elements that make up our universe, but there is one flaw with this theory.
I personaly do not agree with the big bang theory because of a certain scientific law that exists. This law is known as The Law of Conservation of Matter, which states that matter can not be created or destroyed under ordinary circumstances. I do not believe in the Big Bang theory because somthing would of had to create that large ball of condensed matter (hydrogen). This large ball of condensed matter could not have just existed in a vast space of nothing unless it was created by somthing. Just remember you can't take a vast empty space of nothing and put it together and get somthing (matter). Now let's also assume that for som reason that large ball of compact matter did exist. If the matter did exist in a compact state then there would be immense gravitaional forces that would hold it together, and you would need to be able to supply a large ammount of energy to it in order to get it to explode, compact matter will not just break apart with an explosive force unless somthing else acts upon it. I actually presented this statement to my teacher as he was explaining how the universe formed, and he said that scientists believe that there was a large ball of compact matter that exploded and than swirling gasses created the stars and heavyer elements and then he stated that scientists believe that our universe has an elastic lik effect where it can only expand to a certain point and then it will collapse on itself and create a ball of compact matter again and then this matter will explode and create stars again, I guess some scientists believe that this is a continuous cycle. But I told my teacher once again that he still did not explain how This compact ball of matter got there and what would have caused it to explode. My teacher just ingnored me because he could not answere this question, in fact this question is impossible to exist because according to modern physics somthing would have to of created the matter that makes up our universe, and matter cannot be create from nothing. So I believe that I have really foiled the big Ban theory. I personaly believe that God create the Universe. I know that many people may ask well where did he come from. But the truth is that we will never know untill we die.

---

Some remarks on this.

You have to clearly distinguish two different kind of questions.

1. Where did the material existence as such emerge from?

2. What is the origin of the universe in it's present state (baryonic matter, clouds of hydrogen, stars, stellar systems, etc)

Answers to this.

1. Material existence has existed infinitely, it did not have a begin, since matter can't be created out of nothing.

"From nothing comes nothing" so if there is material existence now, it has been there in the past and will be there in the future. But matter is always in the process of transforming, moving and changing, so the form of material existence in the past could have been quite different then it is now.

If you are puzzled by this kind of question, I could advise you to read some on the Philosphical issues in Ontology, which tries to solve the issue of "Why is there something rather then nothing".

2. If we want to explain the observational redshift-distance relation we find, and adapt to the General theory of Gravity, we must conclude that the universe is expanding, so that in the far past it was more dense and smaller as it was now (and also hotter, etc).

There are many more observational facts which coincide with this model of an expanding universe. This theoretical model, which explains the expanding of the universe, and different other phenomena (like the relative abundance of light elements, the CMBR spectrum and such) is know as the Big Bang model.
It does not explain actually as what happend at t=0 or what caused it. BB theory can not go any further back as to t = 10 to-the-power minus 43 seconds.
What happened before that time is a different set of theories, known as Pre Big Bang cosmology.

The Big Bang itself however is not to be understood as the "final cause" or the origin of material existence as such. It only points to a phenomena in which a large scale transformation of matter took place, which were caused by or within a pre-existing material world.
We are still searching for what kind of phenomena could have been involved at that time, and so far some theories have emerged that try to explain it, and which can make observable predictions.

And some last note. There will always be puzzles left to humanity, no matter how much we know. In that way there will always be room for personal beliefs.

For explaining the existence of the world however, we don't need to introduce arbitrary entities or actions (like a divine intervention) to explain why there is a world, instead of nothing. There isn't realy something that can explain that the world exists, or that caused it. The world simply exists, without any outside cause or reason. But we can attribute or invent our own causes or reasons to that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jtkelectroguy:
Actually I have heard of nuclear weapons which do convert mass into energy, and the equation E=mc^2. The equation E=mc^2 states that energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared. If you rearange the equation than you are right, it is possible to creat mass from energy. But energy has to be created from somthing. So you cannot create mass from nothing.
This planet is full of extremely smart scientists and none of them have been able to create mass from energy or energy from nothing, I will believe in the Big Bang theory when somebody has substantial evidence that they have created matter from energy and energy from nonthing. In short Matter can be created from energy, but energy can only be created from matter.

---

Energy can be transformed from one kind into another kind, for example kinetic energy can be transformed into heat. That is what happens if you push the break in your car.