Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

Pluto · May 1, 2009

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

This paper presents an issue that is difficult to argue against.

[0904.4454] Large classical universes emerging from quantum cosmology

Large classical universes emerging from quantum cosmology

Authors: Nelson Pinto-Neto

(Submitted on 28 Apr 2009)

Abstract: It is generally believed that one cannot obtain a large Universe from quantum cosmological models without an inflationary phase in the classical expanding era because the typical size of the Universe after leaving the quantum regime should be around the Planck length, and the standard decelerated classical expansion after that is not sufficient to enlarge the Universe in the time available. For instance, in many quantum minisuperspace bouncing models studied in the literature, solutions where the Universe leave the quantum regime in the expanding phase with appropriate size have negligible probability amplitude with respect to solutions leaving this regime around the Planck length. In this paper, I present a general class of moving gaussian solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation where the velocity of the wave in minisuperspace along the scale factor axis, which is the new large parameter introduced in order to circumvent the abovementioned problem, induces a large acceleration around the quantum bounce, forcing the Universe to leave the quantum regime sufficiently big to increase afterwards to the present size, without needing any classical inflationary phase in between, and with reasonable relative probability amplitudes with respect to models leaving the quantum regime around the Planck scale. Furthermore, linear perturbations around this background model are free of any transplanckian problem.

freeztar · May 1, 2009

This paper presents an issue that is difficult to argue against.

Please stop posting links without providing relevance. What is the issue this paper presents and how is it relevant to your argument in regards to the thread title? Why is it difficult to argue against?

Failure to follow this site rule will result in infractions.

Please consider this when posting here in the future.

enorbet2 · May 5, 2009

It's quite possible that I shouldn't be attempting to write this just now since I seem to be excessively caught between pollen and antihistamine both of which make me feel like Charly at the end of "Flowers of Algernon". However one aspect of reduced capacity is that it forces a slower, more fundamental overview to check the meaning of the main question or problem. The question of "How the Universe began?" which was likely followed immediately by "Did it begin or did it always exist?" was possibly asked by Neanderthals but certainly during the dawn of civilization some 10,000 years ago but had little scientific possibility for solution until the 20th Century, after Spectroscopy and Relativity.

If we look at the evolution of the so-called Big Bang Theory (now expanded into the Standard Model) it didn't take place as a cornerstone hypothesis whose time had come like The Principia or General Relativity, but slowly grew out of them. The earliest scientific work on the subject, Friedman's work in 1922 (and later his student's George Gramov), came out of General Relativity but posed solutions for positive, negative and zero curvature and so provided support for steady state as well as a universe with a finite beginning. So nobody set out to prove an answer to the big question at first. It was sort of forced on them. It was just where the math seemed to lead and was resisted in the extreme especially later by Fred Hoyle. While it might be proposed that Lemaitre and Hoyle had religious agendas, it's fairly certain that Friedman and Gramov did not. After the math, most just wanted to discover how so much Hydrogen and especially Helium got to be here.

Although not as contentious either as intensely or for quite as long as Evolution, both theories faced the largest growth in technology ever for roughly 100 years and have weathered well. Just as Darwin couldn't have imagined the impact of such as DNA, which just as easily could have destroyed it, Friedman, Gramov and not even Hoyle and Hubble could not likely have imagined how much new advances in so many fields would be brought to bear against the Big Bang Theory. Not only have both escaped destruction each new advance seems to add support causing the base theory to become substantially expanded creating a conglommerate that resists mere chiseling at minutiae. It's going to take something fundamental, something huge, to unseat it now. Now, not only is the CMB a major obstacle to competing theories but add this

Dark Energy Constantly With Us / Science News

That pseudo science books still spoke of "the ether" well into the 1950s (and possibly a few still do) over 90 years after it was experimentally and thoroughly discredited in 1887 shows how long myth can hang on muddying the waters but no one in science really takes it at all seriously. Try to name one real scientific theory that enjoyed any kind of consensus lasting even 25 years in the 20th century or, worse, into this one, that has been totally discredited and for all intents and purposes scrapped? Seems to me if it lasts that long in modern times it's on fairly solid ground. So it seems to me that in overview while it is likely the Standard Model will be amended and added to, it is highly unlikely that it is going to be found worthless and discredited altogether absent some monstrous breakthrough unimagineable today. It is as unlikely as suddenly "realizing" Darwin was dead wrong. I'm not saying nobody should attempt to contest it, just consider the odds. Besides that try to imagine a great nerd sitcom named "Steady State". Boring!

Pluto · May 5, 2009

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello enorbet2

This link is quite interesting

The Top 30 Problems with

the Big Bang

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF

1. Static universe models fit observational data better
than expanding universe models.
Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable
parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations,
but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic
deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match
different tests. [2,3] Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone
falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained,
Occam’s razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters—
the static universe model.

maddog · May 5, 2009

Please stop posting links without providing relevance. What is the issue this paper presents and how is it relevant to your argument in regards to the thread title? Why is it difficult to argue against?

Failure to follow this site rule will result in infractions.
Please consider this when posting here in the future.

Freezy,

I don't think Pluto is listening to you. Maybe if you tighten the noose around his neck ? :eek2:

maddog

enorbet2 · May 5, 2009

The most fundamental problem faced here is "What can a forum such as this, limited in the space required to truly address fundamental questions, hope to accomplish on such a large subject, possibly the biggest, as is 'Big Bang or Not?'" Hopefully one thing that can result is the validation of open-minded, but measured, exploration ie. Science. The greatest obstacle to valid Science is closed-minded, inconsistent, agenda-driven stabs in the dark with an "axe to grind", the worst IMHO being religious dogma. The greatest dilemna that I face, and probably many here do as well, is that it is difficult enough to deal with observed data and hard won, accepted facts without also having to deal with the "pitchfork wavers" that dismiss such simply because they find it uncomfortable.

Pluto, I am not in the least calling you a "pitchfork waver" since I have far too little knowledge of you or even your other posts to come to such a conclusion. Also I don't pretend to be some kind of expert, nor am I particularly offended by your posts, but even I can see that many, such as the last PDF, are not good science in that many are or depend on points that are

old and already largely discredited - eg. MOND

inconsitent with observed phenomona - eg. Galaxy Rotation Problem

inconsistent within themselves - too many to mention, but one being insular theory concept

specious and spacious - smacks of pseudoscience

unsubstatntiated claims - eg interstellar and intergalactic medium, a "fog"

Personally I think it would be fascinating drama had Vera Rubin's discovery of the Glaxy Rotation Problem led Milgrom correctly to cause having to modify Newton's Laws, but it didn't, at the very least, so far. It would be excting and possibly even emotionally satisfying if anyone, especially an amateur or group of amateurs, managed to tumble The Standard Model as a house of cards. At least I wouldn't have to accept that we only know a small percentage of the small percentage we can even yet observe and that the Universe will die an achingly slow and ignomious death, or that some future generation will only have the Local Group to observe. However the simple truth is whether we see it as saved or stuck The Standard Model, including Big Bang, continues to be supported by an incredible rush of new data and the digestion and communication of older data in a way no competing theory can begin to match as of yet.

I'm not saying good exploration can't occur just because the explorer wishes to prove or disprove something but that goal should be revealed and explained from the start, particularly if he or she expects to go public. Better exploration happens when the agenda is simply "I wonder what happens if....?". For example if the Large Hadron Collider finds absolutely nothing beyond what Fermilab and others have found, that in itself is still a huge finding with massive implications (no pun intended). While the LHC will likely provide some answers it will certainly ask more questions. On the other end of the scale, the "Bullet Cluster" is a great focus for anyone interested in finding out just how well The Standard Model is going to hold up. Here's one exploratory link:

Direct Empirical Proof of Existence of Dark Matter

for a couple good PDFs

http://cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR2006/02655/COSPAR2006-A-02655.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0512012

This is real Science, actual observation apart from modeling, devoid of agenda. Please check it out.

Sincerely

Jimmy

CraigD · May 5, 2009

The Top 30 Problems with
the Big Bang
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF

The linked paper from a 2002 volume of Apeirion, a journal charitably described by the linked wikipedia article as one which “cannot be regarded as mainstream”. Although it is said to apply a system of peer review, one gets the impression that its reviewers are long time rejecters of the mainstream consensus science, so one might reasonably consider it to be a high-end (it lists many PhD Astrophysicists as editors, first in order, Halton Arp) crank journal.

As such, I wouldn’t consider it a consistently credible source of information, although potentially a wild and interesting one. :naughty: It also can be read for free, a welcome, unusual trait for an even vaguely scientific journal :surprise:

Freezy,

I don't think Pluto is listening to you. Maybe if you tighten the noose around his neck ? :eek_big:

Though there have been problems with Pluto posting links to information little related to this and other threads’ topics, in this case, the linked paper speaks directly from the position of one who rejects any non-steady state universe. Though I don’t find the paper credible or valid, I think it’s fits this thread, which, despite its neutral “Bang or no bang” title, leans heavily toward the fringe assertion of “no bang”.

It might be a service to readers to retitle this thread something like “arguments against non-stready state universe models”, though.

Pluto · May 6, 2009

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

It seems that what ever I post I get some form of abuse.

The last link that I posted has very interesting points and issues.

Point 1 was a response to enorbet2 post.

Rather than discussing the issues, time is wasted on directing the issues along the so called mainstream.

If I just agree that will be the ned of the discussion.

maddog · May 6, 2009

As such, I wouldn’t consider it a consistently credible source of information, although potentially a wild and interesting one. :thumbs_do It also can be read for free, a welcome, unusual trait for an even vaguely scientific journal :thumbs_up Though there have been problems with Pluto posting links to information little related to this and other threads’ topics, in this case, the linked paper speaks directly from the position of one who rejects any non-steady state universe. Though I don’t find the paper credible or valid, I think it’s fits this thread, which, despite its neutral “Bang or no bang” title, leans heavily toward the fringe assertion of “no bang”.

It might be a service to readers to retitle this thread something like “arguments against non-stready state universe models”, though.

I agree with the reference Pluto link might relate to this thread [un]-credible as it is.

My comment was to the "post-link & run" tactic so often employed by Pluto. I have yet

to finish the paper as I am very busy. I looked at a couple of the "points" and notice

how dated and unfounded they were. I also noticed the extensive bibliography so as

to give the impression of credibility. What struck me was that Pluto had no "comment"

on even 1 point. I may admit he may be as busy as I am. So this not a complaint in

any way.

On your reference to retitle this thread. I fully concur. This thread is mostly in the

attack of BBT over what could be said on both sides.

maddog

Pluto · May 7, 2009

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

What points are unfounded.?

I have read all the links provided by this forum in support of the BBT.

There is not one evidence that supports the BBT and the BBT cannot explain the observations local or deep field.

Yes there are theories and assumptions that are considered by scientists as so called evidence to support the BBT.

enorbet2 · May 12, 2009

Pluto please don't be so easily offended. Surely you realize that even if you're a contender you pretty much need to knock out the reigning Champ and not in some bar room brawl but in a ring with rules and referrees. In the case of BBT as champ it has reigned for well over 80 years and despite huge leaps in technology is still champ. In Science the champ gets to be that not by winning a popularity contest for what seems reasonable but is often at first seen as quite unreasonable. Since Einstein we've gone from "God doesn't play dice" through "Yes he does and in dark corners" to "The Universe is not only weirder than you imagine it's weirder than you can imagine".

So I don't think anyone here has a personal agenda against you. It's just that you sometimes appear to be less than objective taking for granted "evidence" that fits rather than evidence as it is. Just as crackpots who deny the manned moon missions continue to point to photographic artifacts as "evidence" of staging long after the answer has beeen revealed or choose to ignore the mirrors that were placed at a very specific location to reflect lasers, it is possibly misleading some to consider your ideas to be agenda driven rather than good objective science. One example is that the recent PDF you linked leans heavily in places on MOND which while still on the fringes in 2002 still had some respectability. Even Milgrom now admits it hit a brick wall in 2006 and the Bullet Cluster phenomena now only adds insult to injury. It is in no shape to act as evidence for anything larger. More than that sentences like

Quote - Pluto - I have read all the links provided by this forum in support of the BBT. There is not one evidence that supports the BBT and the BBT cannot explain the observations local or deep field. - EndQuote

So in one sentence you dismiss almost 100 years of scientific work? What are the odds? As in logic, one must check one's premises or risk being considered illogical.

In any case, that's my twapence.

LaurieAG · May 12, 2009

Hi enorbet, all,

That pseudo science books still spoke of "the ether" well into the 1950s (and possibly a few still do) over 90 years after it was experimentally and thoroughly discredited in 1887 shows how long myth can hang on muddying the waters but no one in science really takes it at all seriously. Try to name one real scientific theory that enjoyed any kind of consensus lasting even 25 years in the 20th century or, worse, into this one, that has been totally discredited and for all intents and purposes scrapped? Seems to me if it lasts that long in modern times it's on fairly solid ground. So it seems to me that in overview while it is likely the Standard Model will be amended and added to, it is highly unlikely that it is going to be found worthless and discredited altogether absent some monstrous breakthrough unimagineable today. It is as unlikely as suddenly "realizing" Darwin was dead wrong. I'm not saying nobody should attempt to contest it, just consider the odds. Besides that try to imagine a great nerd sitcom named "Steady State". Boring!

If you consider the 'ether' as the grid pattern found in your typical 'gravity well' diagram you might possibly understand what a 'steady state' version of a relative universe looks like. While some people might chose to ignore this 'ether,' it is just comprised of fixed infinitessimal lines that allow us to comprehend the effects of force on matter in a way that we, as physical entities, can relate to in the real world. Otherwise we strike the startling unrealities that come cap in hand with many modern universal models.

At the point of the currently theorised Big Bang (from the standard model), there are some surprising anomalies. Stephen Hawking theorises about particles and anti particles being created at the boundaries of singularities (and some speculate that this may be the cause of inflation as some of the particles fall into the singularity) while the singularity (the mother of all singularities) at the BB doesn't have any equivalent particle behaviour (how absolute) despite the fact that, as all mass would be concentrated in the one point, the area at these extremities, and beyond, would be the ideal medium for light due to this lack of mass (i.e. a perfect vacuum). The absoluteness of the conception that time and space disappear outside of a singularity goes back the otherway from the BB to 'reinforce' the behaviour of particles at the boundaries of local singularities, NOT. Nothing absolute here and a decided lack of consistency besides.

Even Einstein didn't like the concept of an absolute singularity because of a couple of problems with regards to a certain number that just pops up (called 'infinity'). This anomally disappears in a localised singularity (within the rest of the universe) to such an extent that a model of a solid state universe with localised close to singularity areas is feasable because there is never any point where everything in the universe is in a total singularity (or infinity comes into the calcs).

There is an internal relationship that applies within the basic building blocks of the universe at the most minute levels and another discrete relationship between those basic building blocks themselves at all higher levels. Mix the two together and you will have inconsistencies galore, absolutely.

All I know is that the real answer isn't absolute one way or the other so, to have it both ways (with or without infinity), one representation could be:-

DEUS NOLI/NOLITE ALEA ('god' doesn't (with/without infinity) play dice)

MODO/POSSE SCIRE MISCERE (but' (with/without infinity) can throw)

It's really only a dichotomy of human psychology. Mix the two together without really understanding their respective internal/external contexts and you will have inconsistencies galore, guaranteed.

LaurieAG · May 12, 2009