#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:50:38 -0500, 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. Gordon I appreciate all the very insightful responses that I've received on this subject. I am still trying to get my thinking opened up enough to let me conceptualize what went on when the spatial dimensions we now perceive were in the process of being unrolled from their initial "curled up to less than a Planck length" to their present state of being uncurled...straight...still a bit curled...infinite radius of curvature??? Was this dimension un-curling process actually what we now describe as the Big Bang explosion? That is, would a meter stick, if somehow contained within that initial point have been discernable as a meter stick from a perspective within that initial point? Would that meter stick now be what we perceive as one meter long, or would it be galactic in size. That is, was that meter stick shrunk down by the curled dimensions such that it was the same length relative to other objects in that initial point? What I'm trying to get settled in my mind is, was it an explosion, or was it an uncurling of dimensions, with no actual explosion. The uncurling effect would have produced the red shift we now observe, just as effectively as an explosion would have. Think of a two dimensional surface on a spherical balloon. Draw some images on the balloon's surface. Next, inflate the balloon to a much larger size. All those objects will have expanded by the same percentage, and measurements of one object relative to the scale of any other object would remain constant. To clarify the above a bit more...draw a picture of a child one meter tall, holding a meter stick in a vertical position, by his side. After the balloon was further inflated, this child would still be one meter tall, as measured by the meter stick in is hand. Gordon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
Dear Antares 531:
On Jul 17, 6:00*pm, Antares 531 wrote: On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:50:38 -0500, 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. I appreciate all the very insightful responses that I've received on this subject. I am still trying to get my thinking opened up enough to let me conceptualize what went on when the spatial dimensions we now perceive were in the process of being unrolled from their initial "curled up to less than a Planck length" to their present state of being uncurled...straight...still a bit curled...infinite radius of curvature??? Without light, and time, distance means nothing. Radius of curvature means nothing. Was this dimension un-curling process actually what we now describe as the Big Bang explosion? *No* one calls it an explosion. They just call it the Big Bang. That is, would a meter stick, if somehow contained within that initial point have been discernable as a meter stick from a perspective within that initial point? It would not exist, and would have self-intersected a lot of times. Would that meter stick now be what we perceive as one meter long, or would it be galactic in size. There was no force in the world strong enough to keep it together. That is, was that meter stick shrunk down by the curled dimensions such that it was the same length relative to other objects in that initial point? I don't think it can be answered. You imagine a physical object in a very unphysical situation. What I'm trying to get settled in my mind is, was it an explosion, No. or was it an uncurling of dimensions, with no actual explosion. I think of it more of a "relaxation". With "clock rates" accelerating, and distances then becoming greater. If you ask yourself as Mach did where inertia derives from, then ask yourself why the entire Universe has one clock rate for each successive now. The uncurling effect would have produced the red shift we now observe, just as effectively as an explosion would have. More effectively, since an explosion should have had much higher "in group" velocities than we now see, at any age. Think of a two dimensional surface on a spherical balloon. Draw some images on the balloon's surface. Next, inflate the balloon to a much larger size. All those objects will have expanded by the same percentage, and measurements of one object relative to the scale of any other object would remain constant. The difference is "binding to the balloon", and "binding between particles". There are force systems at work, with "conservation of energy" at play... at least in the small. This should help: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#SS To clarify the above a bit more...draw a picture of a child one meter tall, holding a meter stick in a vertical position, by his side. After the balloon was further inflated, this child would still be one meter tall, as measured by the meter stick in is hand. He would scream, and the binding forces that held him "so high" would restore his shape. Or he would just stay the same shape. David A. Smith |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Redshift and Microwave radiation favor Atom Totality and disfavorBig Bang #9; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory | Net-Teams, | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 31st 10 05:19 PM |
Bang or no bang. | socratus | Misc | 8 | February 17th 08 06:18 PM |
Before the Big Bang? | George Dishman | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | September 28th 06 02:40 PM |
B, Big, Big Bang, Big Bang Books... | socalsw | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | June 7th 04 09:17 AM |
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 27 | November 7th 03 10:38 AM |