Big Bang

Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a thermonuclear
bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling the three dimensions we now
perceive as identifying our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within this universe, may
have been a smooth, gentle process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Gordon

Dear Antares 531:

On Jul 16, 5:50*am, Antares 531 wrote:
Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Not really. Using the laws of physics we have now, and compressing
the Universe from its current temperature / size, to a much smaller
size... yields very high temperatures. Witness the CMBR radiation,
that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a glowing
hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. This (CMBR quench) was supposedly
300,000 years after the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it
was much hotter than this before.

Inferno =/= Explosion

David A. Smith

On Jul 16, 10:09*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Antares 531:

On Jul 16, 5:50*am, Antares 531 wrote:

Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Not really. *Using the laws of physics we have now, and compressing
the Universe from its current temperature / size, to a much smaller
size... yields very high temperatures. *Witness the CMBR radiation,
that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a glowing
hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. *This (CMBR quench) was supposedly
300,000 years after the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it
was much hotter than this before.

Inferno =/= Explosion

David A. Smith

There is one detail of that explanation I don't understand. You're
saying that the CMBR radiation is coming from (or came from) hydrogen
plasma. That plasma is out beyond all of the galaxies in the
universe, and the most distant galaxies are traveling away from us at
nearly the speed of light. Wouldn't that then suggest that that
plasma is traveling away from us even faster? And whatever is beyond
that plasma is hotter still and flying away even faster still.

I'm not sure it is justified in saying that a ball of plasma expanding
at the speed of light in all directions is NOT an explosion.

Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 16, 2:16*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 16, wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:50*am, Antares 531 wrote:

Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Not really. *Using the laws of physics we have now,
and compressing the Universe from its current
temperature / size, to a much smaller size... yields
very high temperatures. *Witness the CMBR radiation,
that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a
glowing hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. *This
(CMBR quench) was supposedly 300,000 years after
the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it was
much hotter than this before.

Inferno =/= Explosion

There is one detail of that explanation I don't understand.
*You're saying that the CMBR radiation is coming from
(or came from) hydrogen plasma.

That is what those that know say. It is consistent with the data.

*That plasma is out beyond all of the galaxies in the
universe,

No, the stuff-that-was-plasma is right here with us still. Some of it
captured into stars, but the rest is still scooting around in random
directions (locally).

and the most distant galaxies are traveling away from
us at nearly the speed of light.

See here is a problem with expressing it that way. Those distant
galaxies have relative motions to their neighbors that are similar to
us and our neighbors. The only similarity to "traveling away" is the
expansion of space between us (like the hallway in the movie
Poltergeist).

And the relative motions appear to exceed c. And so you might ask...
"how can we see the light?"

The light we are getting now, is trapped within our Rindler horizon.
We aren't seeing now, we are seeing light that made it just far
enough...

*Wouldn't that then suggest that that plasma is
traveling away from us even faster?

z is over 1000. A small z is "departing" at c

*And whatever is beyond that plasma is hotter still
and flying away even faster still.

But not actually moving, and had we divine vision, we could see the
back of our heads (so to speak).

I'm not sure it is justified in saying that a ball
of plasma expanding at the speed of light in all
directions is NOT an explosion.

It isn't as you describe, but it is part of the reason why the name
Big Bang has stuck.

The Universe is finite and closed. It appears the same in every
direction, in terms of physics. The CMBR was
- the last "burp" of a self-exciting plasma that quenched when the
Universe expanded enough to drop the intensity and density enough that
recombination no longer occurred, or
- it is a multi-folded surface through a Universe-filling globular
cluster, that devolved into lots of galaxies, or
- it is the surface of one super star, or
- even more weird stuff (some of which do not agree with observation).

The key is there was no pre-existing space, and everything on the
"left" can eventually be found on the "right", and this arrangement
will be the same for all those places too.

Here is some good reading material for you:

Many ways to "travel away from"
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#FTL

Why are we still getting the CMBR light...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html

Some highlights of cosmology and the Standard Model.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

If'n you want to know.

David A. Smith

On Jul 17, 11:40*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 16, 2:16*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:





On Jul 16, wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:50*am, Antares 531 wrote:

Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Not really. *Using the laws of physics we have now,
and compressing the Universe from its current
temperature / size, to a much smaller size... yields
very high temperatures. *Witness the CMBR radiation,
that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a
glowing hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. *This
(CMBR quench) was supposedly 300,000 years after
the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it was
much hotter than this before.

Inferno =/= Explosion

There is one detail of that explanation I don't understand.
*You're saying that the CMBR radiation is coming from
(or came from) hydrogen plasma.

That is what those that know say. *It is consistent with the data.

*That plasma is out beyond all of the galaxies in the
universe,

No, the stuff-that-was-plasma is right here with us still. *Some of it
captured into stars, but the rest is still scooting around in random
directions (locally).


First of all, thank you, David, for your detailed response. I *think*
you are representing the standard model of cosmology fairly well (not
to be confused with the standard model in particle physics.)

I think the point that you are making that is hardest to justify is
that hydrogen atoms are still producing photons from the big bang,
locally. First of all, you must say how locally. Are these hydrogen
atoms in between the galaxies, within our galaxy, or within our solar
system?

Secondly, you must have a mechanism by which those hydrogen atoms
continue to produce a thermal spectrum despite the fact that in our
local region they should be so far spread out that they cannot
possibly interact.

I don't think any proponent of the standard model has answered these
questions. But instead of giving up their notion that the light is
produced locally (maintaining ambiguity about *how* locally), they
insist there must be an explanation--only we haven't found it yet.
Dark energy, dark matter, etc.

Meanwhile they completely ignore the idea that perhaps the light is
coming from far away. I guess they can't envision the possibility
that the universe is that big, that we are on the inside of a giant
ball of plasma. A giant and infinite explosion. I will come back to
this issue down below.

and the most distant galaxies are traveling away from
us at nearly the speed of light.

See here is a problem with expressing it that way. *Those distant
galaxies have relative motions to their neighbors that are similar to
us and our neighbors. *The only similarity to "traveling away" is the
expansion of space between us (like the hallway in the movie
Poltergeist).


The ability to imagine something, like the hallway in the movie,
Poltergeist; like the folding of space in L'Engle's novels, do not
make it so. Our ability to envision the stretching of space is a
testament to our creativity, but not observational astronomy. True,
light does bend around gravitational masses, and time slows in the
regions of high gravity, but neither of these represent a bending or
streching of space.

You can always map objects and events into a Cartesian Coordinate
system from afar, and after rotation, translation, and Lorentz
Transformation, those objects and events are going to look the same
from anywhere and everywhere. Whether or not proponents of the
standard model agree with this statement, the possibility should at
least be considered, before it is tossed aside--before we introduce
dark energy, dark matter, stretching of space, and a dozen other
things YOU KNOW we have no evidence for.


And the relative motions appear to exceed c. *And so you might ask...
"how can we see the light?"

The light we are getting now, is trapped within our Rindler horizon.
We aren't seeing now, we are seeing light that made it just far
enough...

*Wouldn't that then suggest that that plasma is
traveling away from us even faster?

z is over 1000. *A small z is "departing" at c

*And whatever is beyond that plasma is hotter still
and flying away even faster still.

But not actually moving, and had we divine vision, we could see the
back of our heads (so to speak).


This bothers me a lot, too. We've gone to all the trouble of
maintaining the constant speed of light with the principle of
relativity, and then proponents of the standard model say we're going
to throw away the principle of relativity. Everything is stationary,
they say. Everything is moving the same speed that we are--it's only
the streching of space itself that makes things LOOK like it's
traveling away from us.

The principle of relativity, at least in part, implies that there is
no special velocity. As such, we should expect the universe to
consist of matter that is traveling at no special velocity, which
means we should NOT expect everything to be stationary with respect to
ourselves. But the standard model INSISTS that everything is
stationary--not because of evidence, but just because.

I'm not sure it is justified in saying that a ball
of plasma expanding at the speed of light in all
directions is NOT an explosion.

It isn't as you describe, but it is part of the reason why the name
Big Bang has stuck.

The Universe is finite and closed. *It appears the same in every
direction, in terms of physics. *The CMBR was
- the last "burp" of a self-exciting plasma that quenched when the
Universe expanded enough to drop the intensity and density enough that
recombination no longer occurred, or
- it is a multi-folded surface through a Universe-filling globular
cluster, that devolved into lots of galaxies, or
- it is the surface of one super star, or
- even more weird stuff (some of which do not agree with observation).


Finally, I think this may be the crux of the matter. You say the
universe is finite--by that, I assume you mean finite in mass. If
this were true, then I would have to withdraw most of my objections.
If the universe is finite, then that would mean there would have to be
some counteracting force to keep it from collapsing.

That would also mean, that you could calculate the total momentum of
the universe. It would be a finite mass, traveling with some mean
velocity, and that velocity would then become "special" because it
would be the speed of the universe. Not particularly "relativistic,"
but if it were true, then, we'd have to accept "it is what it is," I
think.

However, if the universe is infinite, then there would be no imbalance
which would cause collapse. The universe would keep expanding
forever, and would be shaped like a sphere of incredibly dense plasma
flying out at the speed of light.

This may well be the assumption you are starting with--that the
universe is not infinite in mass, and this leads to everything you are
saying. What proponents of the standard model do is follow the
mathematical model of "Reductio ad absurdum" This is the form of
argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its
implications logically to an absurd consequence.

The absurd consequences may not seem so absurd--dark energy, dark
matter, stretching space, etc, but they have NOT been observed. Let's
at least TRY to see what the implications of infinite mass are, and I
believe we will find, as A. Edward Milne did in the mid-1930's, that
the CMBR is predicted without so much hand-waving.

The key is there was no pre-existing space, and everything on the
"left" can eventually be found on the "right", and this arrangement
will be the same for all those places too.

Here is some good reading material for you:

Many ways to "travel away from"http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL

Why are we still getting the CMBR light...http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html

Some highlights of cosmology and the Standard Model.http://www.astro.ucla..edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

If'n you want to know.

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll have a look at the articles later.

Again, thanks,
Jonathan Doolin

Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 18, 7:24*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 17, wrote:
On Jul 16, 2:16*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:

On Jul 16, wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:50*am, Antares 531 wrote:

Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Not really. *Using the laws of physics we have now,
and compressing the Universe from its current
temperature / size, to a much smaller size... yields
very high temperatures. *Witness the CMBR radiation,
that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a
glowing hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. *This
(CMBR quench) was supposedly 300,000 years after
the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it was
much hotter than this before.

Inferno =/= Explosion

There is one detail of that explanation I don't understand.
*You're saying that the CMBR radiation is coming from
(or came from) hydrogen plasma.

That is what those that know say. *It is consistent with
the data.

*That plasma is out beyond all of the galaxies in the
universe,

No, the stuff-that-was-plasma is right here with us still.
*Some of it captured into stars, but the rest is still
scooting around in random directions (locally).

First of all, thank you, David, for your detailed response.
*I *think* you are representing the standard model of
cosmology fairly well (not to be confused with the
standard model in particle physics.)

Every discipline has its standard model. The one with the best fit to
observation, and maps to all known observations in the discipline.

I think the point that you are making that is hardest to
justify is that hydrogen atoms are still producing photons
from the big bang, locally.

I did not claim that. No one claims that. The hydrogen stopped
releasing light 13-odd billion years ago. When a salmon swims just a
tiny bit faster than the current, it just takes a long time to get
anywhere. So with photons trying to get away from each observer's
Rindler horizon.

*First of all, you must say how locally. *Are these
hydrogen atoms in between the galaxies, within our
galaxy, or within our solar system?

Imagined problem is not mine.

Secondly, you must have a mechanism by which
those hydrogen atoms continue to produce a thermal
spectrum despite the fact that in our local region they
should be so far spread out that they cannot possibly
interact.

Solarsheath, stellarsheaths, the "missing normal matter"... evidence
of matter between the stars and galaxies. Sparse if you want to
breathe it.

I don't think any proponent of the standard model has
answered these questions.

Because they know what the theory is, because they *read* the
material. Place one hand over each ear. Between those two hands is
the finest computer and best friend you will ever have. But you need
to use it for something other than keeping your ears apart.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
.... please feel free to use the links on that page, and *read and
understand*.

David A. Smith

On Jul 17, 11:40*am, dlzc wrote:

Why are we still getting the CMBR light...http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html


Excellent animation to describe the view of Standard Model. That
clarifies quite a bit thank you.

In the first frame or two, the expansion of space is much greater than
the speed of light, but then it quickly slows under light speed, and
then to a crawl.

It comes from the assumption that the matter in the universe is all
evenly distributed and stationary, and for fulfilling those
assumptions, it does an incredibly good job.

On the other hand, one should NOT assume that all the matter in the
universe is stationary, because that runs counter to our
observations. Our observations indicate that farther galaxies are all
moving away from us. I guess Standard Model proponents would say that
is my naivete in assuming that redshift is entirely due to recession
velocity.

I don't hink I'm the one who has made a false assumption though. I
think the false assumption is the assumption of the Standard Model:
that all of the matter in the universe is comoving.

The standard model's assumption that all the matter of the universe is
comoving is a counterfactual; "If only the matter of the universe were
not spreading apart.... then..."

The data of luminosities and redshifts says the universe IS spreading
apart, and if you accept the counterfactual, then the actual data must
be explained AWAY by some other mechanism (the stretching of space)
when you make the standard model's counterfactual assumption.

Explaining away the redshifts of distant galaxies, reminds me of
Ptolemy's geocentric model explaining away retrograde motion It made
reasonable predictions, but it did not really introduce a mechanism.
"each planet required an epicycle revolving on a deferent, offset by
an equant which was different for each planet. But it predicted
various celestial motions, including the beginnings and ends of
retrograde motion, fairly well at the time it was developed."

The standard model's stretching of space is, indeed, a mechanism, so
it is one better on Ptolemy's idea. However, it is a mechanism
designed to explain away data, after making an unjustified assumption,
and it is a mechanism that is only ever used to explain the Standard
Model of Cosmology--nothing else.

In article ,
Jonathan Doolin writes:
On the other hand, one should NOT assume that all the matter in the
universe is stationary,

No one assumes that.

Our observations indicate that farther galaxies are all
moving away from us.

That's at best an oversimplification. You need to consider what
coordinate system you are using.

think the false assumption is the assumption of the Standard Model:
that all of the matter in the universe is comoving.

No one assumes that, either.

The data of luminosities and redshifts says the universe IS spreading
apart,

Better would be to say the Universe was hotter and denser in the
past. There is abundant evidence for that.

Describing modern cosmology in simple terms is not easy; you probably
want to read several different descriptions. There's a lot of sloppy
or even bogus stuff around, though, so you have to be careful about
your sources. I think perhaps some of the problem is that there's a
tendency to want to view the Universe as it might be seen by some
omniscient outside observer, but all we can actually measure is what
we see from inside. If you really want to understand it, you need to
do the math. (Peebles' _Principles of Physical Cosmology_ is one
standard textbook.) Expecting to find some monstrous logical
contradiction in the standard picture, though, seems a bit naive.

By the way, the standard picture is that the _observable_ Universe is
(very likely) open and of finite mass. There's no way to know what
lies outside the observable Universe.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a thermonuclear
bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling the three dimensions we now
perceive as identifying our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within this universe, may
have been a smooth, gentle process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Gordon

I think the universe is a quantum energy pulsating quark repeating the
big bang.

That means there are small universes making up a bigger universe, and
even in the bigger universe the speed of light remains the same,
meaning
that universe is just like ours, only things go much slower there in
terms
of time. But I am not a fan believing Einstein's relativity theory is
correct
which supports this idea. Quantum universes.

On Jul 16, 9:17*am, gb wrote:
Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a thermonuclear
bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling the three dimensions we now
perceive as identifying our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within this universe, may
have been a smooth, gentle process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Gordon

I think the universe is a quantum energy pulsating quark repeating the
big bang.

That means there are small universes making up a bigger universe, and
even in the bigger universe the speed of light remains the same,
meaning
that universe is just like ours, only things go much slower there in
terms
of time. But I am not a fan believing Einstein's relativity theory is
correct
which supports this idea. Quantum universes.

Based on Einstein's theory I think it is the
distortion of time that causes the big bang.

The universe cools as it expands, and eventually
reaches zero kelvin where even light comes to a
full stop. Once that happens, distortion in time
begins occurring which brings the universe to a
singularity explosion, which would be the big bang,
a time distortion.

But bringing it down to quantum nuclear physics,
we find the pulsating energy that is like a quark's
tiny big bangs occurring periodically billions of
times a second.