The end of the Big Bang Theory era? (NPR, not crackpottery)

On 16/09/2011 9:11 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/16/11 5:14 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Can't see how there would be any trace left of the singularity's
impression after Inflation takes over. Inflation takes the Universe from
a small size to something that's over 100 orders of magnitude bigger.
Even with Big Bang Inflation, the evidence for the Big Bang will be
obliterated.

Yousuf Khan

Observation of the CMB show otherwise!
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Sam, you might as well leave this thread, you're in way over your head.

Yousuf Khan

On 9/16/11 11:52 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 16/09/2011 9:11 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/16/11 5:14 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Can't see how there would be any trace left of the singularity's
impression after Inflation takes over. Inflation takes the Universe from
a small size to something that's over 100 orders of magnitude bigger.
Even with Big Bang Inflation, the evidence for the Big Bang will be
obliterated.

Yousuf Khan

Observation of the CMB show otherwise!
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Sam, you might as well leave this thread, you're in way over your head.

Yousuf Khan

Our readers might be enlightened if you, yousuf, were to state
how long you think the "big bang" lasted.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:52:46 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 16/09/2011 9:11 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/16/11 5:14 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Can't see how there would be any trace left of the singularity's
impression after Inflation takes over. Inflation takes the Universe
from a small size to something that's over 100 orders of magnitude
bigger. Even with Big Bang Inflation, the evidence for the Big Bang
will be obliterated.

Yousuf Khan

Observation of the CMB show otherwise! http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Sam, you might as well leave this thread, you're in way over your head.

Yousuf Khan

http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound.html

On 16/09/2011 10:44 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:26:09 -0400, ~buttercup~ wrote:

On 15/09/2011 10:59 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Lastly, what happened before the big bang is unphysical and
non-science. It is like asking what happens if you go the speed of
light, or what happens if you're inside a black hole. The question
makes no sense.

Really? I invite you to jump inside one yourself, and then tell me
whether the "question makes no sense".

Exactly. I couldn't tell you what was inside. No information, matter or
light can escape a black hole.

Wrong. Hawking conceded that bet, and acknowledged that information gets
back out when it evaporates. Indeed, if it didn't that would violate
unitarity in quantum physics.

On 9/17/11 1:54 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:52:46 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 16/09/2011 9:11 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/16/11 5:14 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Can't see how there would be any trace left of the singularity's
impression after Inflation takes over. Inflation takes the Universe
from a small size to something that's over 100 orders of magnitude
bigger. Even with Big Bang Inflation, the evidence for the Big Bang
will be obliterated.

Yousuf Khan

Observation of the CMB show otherwise! http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Sam, you might as well leave this thread, you're in way over your head.

Yousuf Khan

http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound.html

Thanks Marvin! :-)

On 17/09/2011 2:54 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:52:46 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 16/09/2011 9:11 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/16/11 5:14 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Can't see how there would be any trace left of the singularity's
impression after Inflation takes over. Inflation takes the Universe
from a small size to something that's over 100 orders of magnitude
bigger. Even with Big Bang Inflation, the evidence for the Big Bang
will be obliterated.

Yousuf Khan

Observation of the CMB show otherwise! http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Sam, you might as well leave this thread, you're in way over your head.

Yousuf Khan

http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound.html

Yes, you can call it the map of the after-effects of the Big Bang, if
you like. But you could also call this the after-effects of Inflation.

I suspect that the name Big Bang will be around long after the theory
itself stays around. It's ingrained in popular culture, there's even a
TV show named after it. It's a good memorable name for the start of the
universe, whether the actual mechanism still is described by it or not.

Yousuf Khan

On Sep 16, 5:14*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 15/09/2011 4:26 PM, eric gisse wrote:





Yousuf *wrote in news:4e7254f5$1
Well, the Big Bang model itself is not testable, any more than any of
these alternatives, we've just assumed that it must've started at some
singularity. That's because we can't see before the Cosmic Microwave
Background which occurred some 300,000 years after the Big Whatever
Start, and serves to mask the Big Whatever Start from our view
completely. All of them would produce the exact same CMB patterns we
see
now, and they all involve some kind of an expansion from a smaller to
a
bigger size universe.

* * * Yousuf Khan

Nope. Different formation scenarios leave different imprints on the CMB,
unless the 'different' ones all start from the same singularity then
whatever.

Can't see how there would be any trace left of the singularity's
impression after Inflation takes over. Inflation takes the Universe from
a small size to something that's over 100 orders of magnitude bigger.
Even with Big Bang Inflation, the evidence for the Big Bang will be
obliterated.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

the basIc idea behind this thread is not that there wasn't a bb.
it's simply that the bb was not the beginning but a very critical
stage
In space-time like the very short most critical stage of a star
undergoing
Gravitational collapse.

Of curse in the case of the entire universe, we cannot collect ANY
Information at all before the big bang with any telescope
but if we have a pretty good idea of what the pre BB era was like,
There are many creative approaches to test this with matter&energy

r.y

Physicist claimed that, because the Universe is observed to be
expanding, that to trace it back in time, which means that it would be
contracting, we must inevitably arrive at a point at which to trace it
back any further, would mean that the Universe must disappear. At this
imaginable point it was assumed that this was the beginning of not
only the visible Universe, but of all the Universe, including space
and time, and that to postulate a time before this makes no sense.

But it is also postulated that the entire Universe emerged from a
point of infinite density and infinitely small size, and these two
ideas do not seamlessly fit.

This is because an infinitely small size and density in the past,
would logically mean that the Universe was expanding from an
infinitely small size and from an infinite time, and therefore has no
beginning.

As it stands, either one or both these ideas are wrong.

If we instead, starting with the observation that the visible Universe
is expanding, and that to trace it back in time to a point at which to
trace it any further would mean that it disappears, reason that,
because everything in the Universe including space and time, is
interrelated, that when we arrive at the point at which to trace it
back any further means that the visible Universe of matter, merged
with the invisible Universe of formless space and that Matter is a
contraction or condensation of space.

This would mean that it does make sense to ask what was before the Big
Bang, or condensed form from which the visible Universe is expanding,
which would be an expanded form of the visible Universe, which is
space, and that the reason that it disappears at this point is because
it disappears as “being no apparent”, not disappears as “being
nonexistent”.

This is I think, what the clear thinking logical physicist are
arriving at today, as they modify the illogical Big Bang Theory.

One of the main reasons I think that this illogical trail was followed
and adhered to so tightly, is that some physicist give so much more
credence to mathematics than to logic, forgetting that mathematics is
a form of logic, and ever so subtle, logic a form of mathematics.

Another main reason is one which I have found and is set to
revolutionize Physics and mathematics altogether, and that is that,
the “Inverse Square Law”, which so much of this is base, is
interpreted to diverge to infinity, as in infinitely small points and
infinitely dense particles, as well as infinite divergences of
momentum measurements from position measurements and energy
measurements from time measurements, which forms the basis of the
Uncertainty Principle.

But looked at geometrically, “The Inverse Square law”, concerning
quantum’s of energy mass, converges to c^2 which is rest mass, and
with a certainty of h/2pi/2 for energy, momentum, position time and
other dimensional measurements and as such rescues the theory of the
Universe from false infinity which give rise to Big Bangs Black Holes,
Uncertainty’s of position, momentum, time ,energy and beginnings and
endings in space and time

Conrad J Countess