Jump to content
Science Forums

Physicists Have Found The Universe Is Much Bigger Than First Anticipated


Dubbelosix

Recommended Posts

Is this suggesting the big bang needs modifying again?

 

Most likely, the give or take a few powers of ten, means we have to give a few powers of ten concerning the atom count in the Universe, which was roughly estimated at 10^80 x 3 particles. It also means there is an open possibility the universe is older than 14 billion years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am certain that at some point in the future science will swallow (VERY) hard and say "you know this big bang thing? man did we get that really, really wrong"

 

It's just the NOTHING is working out, no predictions are accurate or predictable, the reasons for what we see can be explained by other mechanisms that actually make sense, and far more sense and is actually supported by a consistent theory. (like redshift/distance by General relativity). 

 

All we see as CMB turns out to be foreground and background (edit) matter or 'dust'.

 

I like everyone else on the planet have been brought up being told the big bang 100% happened, because redshift and CMB, but once you start to dig into the data and look at other possible reasons why we see a redshift to distance relationship, and why we see background radiation you can see how those reasons are logical and make sense. 

 

We have background radiation because the universe if FULL of background matter... that radiates! 20,000 tons a year of particulate matter (iron and meteors and such) fall to the earth every year, the earth is flying through a huge cloud of matter, dust, all that dust is at a temperature and they are in thermal communication with everything else. 

 

That dust radiates thermal radiation, at at frequency that is high enough to be detected over the cosmic noise floor, but low enough in frequency to easily travel long distance.. So why we see a peak at 2.7k got this radiation from background matter is no surprise. It's easy to justify that mechanism.

 

However, a logical, practical and reasonable explanation for the CMB coming from the afterglow from the big bang (baby photo of the universe permanently painted in the sky with light!), is almost impossible for me to justify..

 

It's just not practically possible (due to the nature of spacetime), that we can see and event in the past, locally, by look far away. So we just cant look a long way away and see the start of the universe. 

 

If we could do that, we would be able to instantly teleport to a point right now (very important that right now), where the recombination event that created the CMB is occurring. 

That means that everywhere RIGHT NOW, the big bang is happening at the edge of our universe (that has no edge) and the big bang is creating the universe as we speak and we are inside it, and the BB on the outside.. 

 

But that is not how it  works, if you teleport anywhere in our universe NOW, instantly, it will look exactly like it does here, and that place where the CMB is being created is an infinite distance way, no matter where you are in the universe, and you are still the same distance away from the source of the CMB. 

 

The same matter that detects the CMB is the same matter that radiates the CMB, in the big bang model, so it is possible that the same electron that emitted the photon of CMB is the very same electron that detects the CMB in your receiver. So how does that work? That's like firing a bullet at the speed of light then running to the target, beating the bullet and then being shot by the bullet you just fired.. Not an easy thing to do!

 

The big bang model was propose based on zero evidence for it, several YEARS before Hubble observed a redshift to distance relationship, the person who proposed was a Jesuit priest, who used to lecture physics in his priests uniform. 

 

Now I don't know where a catholic priest would get the idea of a point of creation with no evidence, but I can probably have a guess !!!

 

Then it was off to the races, if you make your theory vague enough ANY evidence can be manipulated is confirmational evidence to support said vague theory (Richard Feynman paraphrase). 

 

That is exactly what happened with Hubble, he observed a VERY WEAK relationship between redshift and distance (very weak, the plots are all over the place), and instantly that is 'due to the big bang and expansion'... 

 

Same happened with the CMB, same happens with all observations..

 

This is where the problems start, if the big bang is wrong, that is why the closer we look and the more evidence we gather the more problematic becomes the various BB models. 

 

There is not silver bullet either, there is no clear, unambiguous evidence that says this effect is the result of the big bang and can ONLY be from the big bang.

 

The way it works now is that the big bang itself cannot be falsified, a theory that cannot be falsified is not a valid theory, and it is horrible science.

 

If your theory makes a testable prediction and that prediction turn out to be wrong, it FAILED the test, it did not meet that standard or burden of proof, it is a strong indication that your theory is wrong. But even worse is if you make a testable prediction and it is wrong, you just say it is right and pretend everything is fine!!

 

That happens in Big Bang cosmology all the time, and all that is not even starting to get into the necessary and added assumptions and extra variables, that have to be applied for any of it to even come close to making sense. (inflation, dark matter, dark energy, MOND and on and on).

 

It came as a bit of a shock to realise the big bang never happened, but for me it's like god, if you don't believe it you don't believe it. It would take a lot to convince me that BB really happened now. When I know how easy it is to understand and model the effects we see that we attribute to the big bang being produced by other and more reasonable means.

 

This is my before first coffee angry old man's science rant.. (and get off my lawn!!!)..  

Edited by Mutex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt there was heating in the early universe, but this wasn't the beginning. In conversations with philosophers recently, we still grasp onto singularity theorems even though the original creators of those theorems eventually gave them up. The BB is absolutely incomplete and I agree the cracks are beginning to show. It will be a hard pill to swallow, but scientists need to grow some balls and accept that science doesn't always have the true facts, even in light of certain "evidences."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you an example, I have been speaking about gravity as a drag phenomenon for a while now, then Sabine went off and published a paper of how Baryonic matter is the cause of dark matter. All she did was fabricate a different line of approach and has given no credit to anyone. Her approach is simply wrong, the drag happens on the observable Baryonic matter and the supermassive black hole is the major contributor to these effects on that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is possible but the creation field has to be replaced, as you have noticed with special conditions involving the ground state fields. This is sort of the idea anyway, that a supercool region existed before it, in a condensate following Fermi Dirac statistics, but it is also possible we could be talking about a Bose condensate of photons, basically a photon liquid to gas state cannot be ruled out either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed the model originally from Motz and later in collaboration Motz and Krafts. I took the idea seriously and rewrote it in terms of irreversible thermodynamics including a particle creation phase. I noticed we had to be talking about the ground state of the fields. I realize when doing this, the Big Bang actually violates the law of thermodynamics without the phase model from the Clapeyron equation, and so eventually came across the original idea which was written up as the "cold big bang model."

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Big_Bang&ved=2ahUKEwjL7M7pyO3nAhWLYMAKHW2eArEQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1ZeKRLp533P7-q3xDcyQJi&cshid=1582663465988

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I followed your link, and found some articles dated 2011 by Armando Assis. Ive only glanced at them so far https://vixra.org/pdf/1202.0009v3.pdf cold big bang and the flatness problem and his earlier paper on cold big bang cosmology http://www.ptep-online.com/2011/PP-25-14.PDF

I've only just read these now, and it seems he is on the right track very similar to my approach, albeit, I have taken the model to a better understanding for irreversible thermodynamic phases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...