Thread: Flat universe and the big bang theory

On another forum I had a healthy debate with a serial science poster about the big bang and the intial expansion required at 4 times the speed of light etc..
We had debated black/dark matter and energy and the best explanation the science zealot could give is we observe its effects...not actuallly true or proven we do observe effects which cannot be explained without the addition of magic super glue to hold things in place for the current theory and it has become known as dark matter and dark energy...big difference. His rationale was we observed stars long before we could prove what they were...was he referring to those holes in the blanket where light shone? Timing is crucial and truth is realitive to the time it is stated was my only point.
Recently I have been reading the statistical analysis on the probability of the universe being the current flat shape ...it is 10 to the power of 100 more likely to happen without inflation ( another key concept that is observed in our universe) than with it.
Then their is good inflation v bad inflation.....bad inflation where it is more 10 to the power of 15 times more condusive to produce environments that would sustain life.
Good inflation9 the one the current theory uses) is a remote and statistical rareity and is needed to produce a flat shape that we currently live within.

So all this does not make the theory wrong, but it does make it such a fluke that IT BEGGARS BELIEF.

Now combine this with outline of how the big bang began (or at least or current theory)( ps. this next post was deleted by the science mod from another forum as it "read like a comic").

no one "understands" super force... it is an imaginary combination of the four known forces before the universe supposedly expanded at speeds four times the speed of light for a while..another very strange occurance for a scientist to state..However i digress...

super force was invented because science needed a super force source to break free of the black /white hole in the big bang theory...not because of anything else...let us see... there were only four special brothers...strong nuclear, weak nuclear, gravity and magneto....none of these good forces alone had the power to break free of the evil black hole, which by the way (according to current science and the BB theory) didnt exist... but when they combined they formed..tah dah...super force!
This super Force then overcame its single FRW captor and escaped at a speed 4 times faster than light until they decided to slow down a bit,( for no apparent reason)...then the first ever planets whom stragggled too much were gobbled up by the evil black holes and eaten from inside... or worse were they attacked by the equally evil super huge white holes by using the temporal parts of the spacetime metric after tharwting the swartzchild dilemna by continually expanding!( although the universe has been measured as currently slowing down)

Luckily for our intrepid stars the "hawking radiation solution" is expected to eventually render the evil black holes inconsequential by depleting their mass. Our intrepid stars may still avoid the isotropic collapse that spacetime had planned for it. Will the evil oppenheimer plan a stellar collapse to end all our heroic forces hopes as the evil black hole swallow everyhing in their path and pass it to the white hole sigularities for use?... will our star survive the evil whiteholes "string of beads" plan where the evil white hole gang explode separately but in a unexplainable co-ordinated fashion to acheive the GR Exact solution and realising the 'ONE' universe we supposedly seek?..stay tuned for more, although it may take thousands of billons of years before we first see the edge of the evil whiteholes cunning identity...
Will they again control our four heroic forces fates or will our heros again form to become TAH DAH ....SUPER FORCE!

I actually believe BB is our best guess yet, but let's be realistic it is a best fit...as such it's a theory full of holes ( pun intended)

I grew up watching Carl Sagan on PBS. I toook Astro Science in high school. I wish he was here today to participate in these debates. He fostered a love of science for which I will ever be grateful. I did go on to major in music and your post brought the incredible music from that series to mind.





Soapboxmom

great music and vision, thank you! I must watch that series one day.

Now comes the really challenging part ( which I do with a sense of fun and puckness) Those science minded individuals out there I would encourage you to use the laws of permutations to calculate the accumlative statistical likelhood of the big bang being correct noting the few of the many probabilities in the first posting that it needs to be held true. heres a link if you need it.
Probability theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now having done that (please be civil and scientific ) I ask why is "God just did it" any less remote an idea ?
Ladies and gentlemen start your engines.

Perhaps God is the uncaused cause and he just did do it?

Soapboxmom

Wikipedia says: "The age of the Earth is 4.54 BILLION years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples"

Why is humankind so arrogant as to expect it has a bloody clue what happened or could have happened 4.54 BILLION years ago.

Is there anything wrong with humankind saying "We have no possible way of knowing what happened" and turning its' attention to something that matters ???

I guess that's why non ego driven people refer to it as the Big Bang THEORY.

I agree LRM. It's funny to watch. There was a documentary ('The Universe' I think which is a pretty good series) on either History or Discovery channels (or both) that stated scientists have narrowed down the big bang theory to like one atom that contained 4 elements and it exploded to create the universe. But they never addressed how this one single solitary atom would have gotten there.

consolidated,

You are no doubt referring to the article in Scientific American this month by Paul Steinhardt. He makes a very eloquent case for the defects in Inflation Theory, and in addition points out some of its strengths. Further elaborations on the article can be found at the SciAm web site. Steinhardt’s arguments are not universally accepted, and are in fact a minority view. That does not make them wrong however. Some of the rebuttals to his arguments include that at the moment there is no better theory available that is supported by the preponderance of data (and Steinhardt is trying to develop his own theory, so may not be the most unbiased author). Admittedly, we do not have all of the data necessary to validate inflation theory. COBE and subsequent probes have generated a lot of data in support of inflation, and the mainstream view is still that inflation is the best we’ve got for now. Second, the data show that the observable universe is astoundingly flat as well as astoundingly uniform. It is incredibly unlikely that such a state could arise from the rapid initial conditions of the Big Bang (which is thought of as an explosion, but wasn’t anything of the sort). Inflation is one way of explaining not just the uniformity and flatness, but also a lot of other observational data. Steinhardt points out (correctly IMO) that the current version of inflation theory (not Guth’s original version, but the so-called “new” theory) relies on things that are improbable and has some gaps. His arguments on various individual points appear to have merit, but the individual points do not lead to a new theory (yet??). The situation as I see it is that our present state is incredibly unlikely regardless of how it is modeled. For a model to be able to generate the near-zero values for lack of flatness or nonuniformity, it must be very sensitive to perturbation (which is part of Steinhardt’s argument). The analogy is that it is difficult to accurately distinguish small differences between large quantities – how good of a scale would you need to have in order to differentiate between one billion grams and one billion and one grams? The third rebuttal for Steinhardt’s argument in the anthropic principle. We exist, and if rare events must occur in order for us to exist, then those rare events must have happened in our universe. In many cosmological models, there are an infinity of universes, and thus even rare events occur. While this is not all that satisfying, it is a mathematically consistent argument. 10 to the 100th power is a LOT less than infinity…….

In all emergent science, data collection and theory proposal, testing, and refinement occur simultaneously. You are correct in saying that inflation and the Big Bang are the best theories we have at the moment. It is also correct to say that there are significant anomalies, pointed out by Steinhardt and many others.

I'll leave the "God Just Did It" part alone.......however, if you are interested, Hawking's lastest book addresses that specific issue.

Originally Posted by consolidation

great music and vision, thank you! I must watch that series one day.

Now comes the really challenging part ( which I do with a sense of fun and puckness) Those science minded individuals out there I would encourage you to use the laws of permutations to calculate the accumlative statistical likelhood of the big bang being correct noting the few of the many probabilities in the first posting that it needs to be held true. heres a link if you need it.
Probability theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now having done that (please be civil and scientific ) I ask why is "God just did it" any less remote an idea ?
Ladies and gentlemen start your engines.

LRM,

With the greatest respect, I think you might be off base. How did you know that ASD was a scam? Well, you relied on observation, data, a theory, and past experience and arrived at a conclusion. Same thing here. The various disciplines that get combined into cosmology are data and theory-driven, like any scientific endeavor. As better data becomes available, theories are adjusted or discarded accordingly. The LHC at CERN is specifically designed to probe high-energy regions in order to answer some very fundamental questions concerning cosmology primarily (note that I did not say "important questions.") Taken another way, how do you KNOW what happened to you yesterday? Regardless of how you might answer that one, I could always hypothesize that earlier today the Flying Spaghetti Monster created you and everything around you, including your memories of yesterday. That means that there was no "yesterday". This theory explains everything about your existence today, and on the face of it, is a perfectly valid theory and you have no basis for rejecting it. However, this theory is not testable, and thus does not fall into the realm of science. However, the BB theory, as well as theories regarding the origin of the solar system, do fall within the class of theories that ARE testable.

As to the comment on "turning attention to things that matter", I would suggest that a great many people said the same thing about quantum mechanics 100 years ago. Of course, today something like $10 trillion of our global economy relies on mankind's ability to understand and harness the principles of quantum mechanics. There'd be no electronics, for starters. I am not sayiing in any way that cosmology has any practical implications, but rejection of basic science doesn't seem like a good idea. IMVHO, the best reasons to intellectually explore the universe are to challenge/expand/stretch our brains, and more importantly to seek to understand where we and everything around us came from. That is the deep question that cosmology seeks to answer. I know a great many people invoke consolidation's "God Just Did It" theory, but certainly that is not the answer for everyone. There's even the variation of "God Did It And Left Clues For Us To Explore" theory......

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Wikipedia says: "The age of the Earth is 4.54 BILLION years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples"

Why is humankind so arrogant as to expect it has a bloody clue what happened or could have happened 4.54 BILLION years ago.

Is there anything wrong with humankind saying "We have no possible way of knowing what happened" and turning its' attention to something that matters ???

I guess that's why non ego driven people refer to it as the Big Bang THEORY.

Whip,

There are several theories out there as to how the Big Bang started, or even "what came before the Big Bang", if you are interested. As you might guess, the available data is not voluminous, but what there is can be explained in several ways that are mathematically consistent. Of course, "can be explained" is different than "we know" or "we can prove". This is one of the most active areas of research for cosmology.

Originally Posted by Whip

I agree LRM. It's funny to watch. There was a documentary ('The Universe' I think which is a pretty good series) on either History or Discovery channels (or both) that stated scientists have narrowed down the big bang theory to like one atom that contained 4 elements and it exploded to create the universe. But they never addressed how this one single solitary atom would have gotten there.

Thanks for the input every one!

it is always interesting to hear views and perhaps gleen some new info on the subject.
The "god did it" proposal usually elicits some very interesting replies no matter what the subject in science is.

I honestly believe that science v faith is a false dichotomy. Both can co-exist in my opinion, however I realise it is just one mans opinon.

This particular theory is of great interest to me and I am alway happy to learn from those with more rounded backgrounds on the issue.

Dear Entertained, great name! I have to admit to having read a lot of Hawking's works/papers/books/essays as he has a brilliant mind ,but I also find he has a preset agenda and works backwards towards substantiating that agenda, not forward toward truth, correct me if I am mistaken. He does it brilliantly and eloquently it must be said, but the bias really annoys me as it is so obvious that anyone familiar with his work can guess the outcome and be able to summarise the work before you have even read it.

His errors such as the black hole theory never seem to get the same fanfare as his constant statements about God,I sometimes wonder if Preskill ever collected on his bet and why he wasnt lauded, noting he told the world the theory was flawed 30 odd years ago? His statements about God being redundant are not exactly new and were around centuries before he existed and I am not sure why he finds it necessary to fan that particular fire quite so often. I suppose it brings him publicity for new works? Although I would read them even if he didn't find the need to make the rash God statements.

Entertained,

"but rejection of basic science doesn't seem like a good idea" ????

Are you kidding me ???

I am in no way rejecting anything.

It's 4.5 billion years THAT WE KNOW OF.

There are few artifacts that we know of, or which exist in a form which we can recognize as being within our current reality.

Humankind says the first signs of life thus far found show us single cell bacteria existed 3.5 billion years ago.

How do we know that there wasn't at least one whole civilization cycle which existed during the billion years before the bacteria ??

Why would it be "like" anything which exists during humankinds' blip on earths' timeline.

Within our current level of understanding, things could not have simply disappeared and left no trace Within our current level of understanding

We have no idea what could transpire within four and a half billion years.

There's nothing to observe, no data to analyse.Only a modern day interpretation of what few artifacts we have managed to locate.

Humankind can't even agree on the "missing link" theory, and that SUPPOSEDLY happened a mere few million years ago, WE THINK.

Man's quest for answers. This brings back fond memories of a college Captsone class I took that focused on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Myth. I wish PBS would rebroadcast that series.

Soapboxmom

LRM,

Thanks for the clarification -- my inference of your original post was off-base based on your clarifications. I tend to agree with perhaps a broader restatement of your conjecture -- namely we don't know more than we know(unless I've misinterpreted you again). Of course we don't know with 100% certainty that there was not another cycle of civilization shortly after the formation of the planet (nor for that matter with 100% certainty that Bowdoin doesn't have a fully audited, sufficient external revenue stream that could make ASD legal). However, the data available at the moment suggests otherwise, and while that data only represents a fraction of what could be available over 4.5 billion years, it is voluminous nonetheless. For example, while it's true that mankind's tour on this planet is a blip in geological time, the building blocks of life as we know it at the most fundamental chemical level have been around for a long time (DNA has been positively identified in dinosaur fossils in Montana, for example).

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Entertained,

"but rejection of basic science doesn't seem like a good idea" ????

Are you kidding me ???

I am in no way rejecting anything.

It's 4.5 billion years THAT WE KNOW OF.

There are few artifacts that we know of, or which exist in a form which we can recognize as being within our current reality.

Humankind says the first signs of life thus far found show us single cell bacteria existed 3.5 billion years ago.

How do we know that there wasn't at least one whole civilization cycle which existed during the billion years before the bacteria ??

Why would it be "like" anything which exists during humankinds' blip on earths' timeline.

Within our current level of understanding, things could not have simply disappeared and left no trace Within our current level of understanding

We have no idea what could transpire within four and a half billion years.

There's nothing to observe, no data to analyse.Only a modern day interpretation of what few artifacts we have managed to locate.

Humankind can't even agree on the "missing link" theory, and that SUPPOSEDLY happened a mere few million years ago, WE THINK.

I just find it amusing that "humankind" assumes that what exists in our past and in the rest of the universe/s resembles, in any way, the here and now.

For example, I think about 3.5 billion year old fossilized bacteria or the DNA sample found in Montana, and I ask myself what are the mathematical odds of:

a) Finding ANY 3.5 billion year old bacteria
b) Finding ALL 3.5 billion year old bacteria
c) Finding ANYTHING, given the size of the planet and the size of the thus far unexplored areas.

In my tortured mind, it's not inconceivable that 4 billion years ago, there existed a civilization 200 feet under my house. I know with certainty no one in modern times has looked there, so why not ???
Even if they had, what would be the odds they'd be looking for 3.5 billion year old anything, or recognize it if they saw it ????
The sand plain on which I live was only formed around 115,000 years ago, again I wonder what the odds are.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

I just find it amusing that "humankind" assumes that what exists in our past and in the rest of the universe/s resembles, in any way, the here and now.

For example, I think about 3.5 billion year old fossilized bacteria or the DNA sample found in Montana, and I ask myself what are the mathematical odds of:

a) Finding ANY 3.5 billion year old bacteria
b) Finding ALL 3.5 billion year old bacteria
c) Finding ANYTHING, given the size of the planet and the size of the thus far unexplored areas.

In my tortured mind, it's not inconceivable that 4 billion years ago, there existed a civilization 200 feet under my house. I know with certainty no one in modern times has looked there, so why not ???
Even if they had, what would be the odds they'd be looking for 3.5 billion year old anything, or recognize it if they saw it ????
The sand plain on which I live was only formed around 115,000 years ago, again I wonder what the odds are.

LOL, I enjoy seeing and reading various guesses about all manor of things celestial, biological, historical, and/or spiritual, but every time I see the latest and greatest theory about how or what happened, I think about the favorite saying of a supervisor I had years ago," I named my son 'theory' 'cause he didn't work either"...!!!