Holes in Big Bang

[Singularitarian]

You really messed up the [ QUOTE ] tags Sing, and I'm not going to try to sort them out for you.

Would you be so kind as to provide a source - as in a standard text-book and/or paper published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal - which demands that all big bang models require inflation?

More fundamentally, what is it that - in your mind - is "the big bang theory"? I have formed a tentative conclusion that you are very confused about this topic ...

I haven't confused anything. I understand the big bang very well i think, i understand many of its implications and needs.

All this is is you not doing your homework - for the CBM to be isotropic, we have always required inflation. Hence;

''Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the big bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the big bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe?''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

 

[Michael Mozina]

What predictions have been derived from this theory and then subsequently proved via evidence?

Well, let's see. Birkeland was technically the first "EU" proponent. He actually built working lab models to attempt to figure out aurora. He "predicted" coronal loops. He "predicted" high speed solar wind. He "predicted" jets that fly from the sun. All of these things have now been "observed". Note to that these were all true "predictions" that came from real empirical experiments that Birkeland did not anticipate before he began to experiment in his lab.

 

[Wowbagger]

That would be a 'first' for any inflation theory provided it actually ever occurs. So far everything "predicted" by inflation has actually been 'postdicted' from observations, starting with Guth's original 'postdictions'. All it's previous "predictions" were falsified by later observations, including that claim of homogeneous distribution of matter on the largest scales (actually postdicted from previous observations).

Perhaps some experts in cosmology can fill in the details, but if I understand it correctly: Various details about the cosmic microwave background were predicted by the inflationary model, before WMAP discovered them.

When do we simply let a falsified theory die a natural death?

Has it really been falsified? It seems to me that the model is still useful for analyzing the Universe.

What alternative model would you put in its place?

What value does inflation theory really have at this point in terms of actual "predictive value"?

More value than having no theory at all.

Worse, it is objectively false (whatever contemporary cosmology is, "dogma" it is not).

Worse squared, to confuse any part of contemporary science with dogma is a failure of epic proportions ....

Well, I was trying to put it mildly.

All this talk of trying to break down modern cosmological models is counter-productive, unless you have an even better model available to replace it.

Critics of the inflationary model would be much more productive, if they could put their enery into building up a case for something else.

 

[Singularitarian]

Perhaps some experts in cosmology can fill in the details, but if I understand it correctly: Various details about the cosmic microwave background were predicted by the inflationary model, before WMAP discovered them.


Has it really been falsified? It seems to me that the model is still useful for analyzing the Universe.

What alternative model would you put in its place?

More value than having no theory at all.

Well, I was trying to put it mildly.

All this talk of trying to break down modern cosmological models is counter-productive, unless you have an even better model available to replace it.

Critics of the inflationary model would be much more productive, if they could put their enery into building up a case for something else.

But we do have other models which could outdate it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic

 

[lionking]

From Cramer's article:

since this is a science-fiction magazine

Says it all really.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What predictions have been derived from this theory and then subsequently proved via evidence?

Yes, the predictions of plasma cosmology as outlined by Alfven, Lerner, Birkeland, et al. Made many years ago.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15526487 [full text]

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li, and D are more than 7σ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10^-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2σ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a radio fog of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.

From the "plasma cosmology - woo or not" thread here:

The Big Bang with inflation clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian. Plasma cosmology predicts that anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the cosmic fog, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. This is clearly not Gaussian. Observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian. There are too many papers to cite on this. You can find plenty on arXiv.

May I suggest the following publications, wherein the predictions were made, and the subsequent modern evidence supports:

4. H.Alfven, "Cosmology and Recent Developments in Plasma physics", The Australian Physicist, vol. 17, pp.161-165, Nov., 1980

5. E.J. Lerner, "Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 207, p.17-26, 1993.

6. E.J. Lerner, "Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, no. 6, pp. 935-938, Dec. 1992,.

7. E.J. Lerner, "Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 361, pp. 63-68, Sept. 20, 1990.

8. E.J. Lerner, "Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259-263.

9. E.J. Lerner, "Plasma Model of the Microwave Background," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 6, (1988), pp. 456-469.

10. E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Invariants and the Fundamental Constants," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690-702.

11. E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Self-Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193-222.

12. A.L. Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992

13. A.L. Peratt, , "Evolution of the Plasma Universe", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690-702


Also check out the articles listed on the right of this page under the heading "Past Issues" and "Current issue" for more recent up to date supporting evidence in various journals and publications: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/index.html

Also Lerners website: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

And the uncensored version of the wikipedia article on plasma cosmology also contains many more references: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88918621

 

[Wowbagger]

But we do have other models which could outdate it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic

If that's the case, then put it to use!

I would like to see how this new Ekpyrotic model could cover the "holes" better than the inflationary one, and grant us new predictions to look for, in the future. (While also taking into all the other data gathered, so far, about the nature of the Universe.)

THAT could be an interesting, worthwhile discussion!

 

[Singularitarian]

From Cramer's article:



Says it all really.

The state of his work usually includes an in-depth scientific coverage of events - (which are usually 100% accurate) - then speculates what possibilities may arise from it. A usual sci-fiction outlook does it no justice. Cramer remains, as he has always been, a modest scientist, a good one, one obiding by facts.

 

[Singularitarian]

If that's the case, then put it to use!

I would like to see how this new Ekpyrotic model could cover the "holes" better than the inflationary one, and grant us new predictions to look for, in the future. (While also taking into all the other data gathered, so far, about the nature of the Universe.)

THAT could be an interesting, worthwhile discussion!

Well, it means that spacetime has always peristed, so the formation of the universe is the result of many epochs everytime a brane comes and smashes into us. We may have been frozen for many eons.

'Ekpyrotic' comes from the Greek word, 'conflagration.' It was coined by Steinhardt, Ovrut, Turok and Khoury in the DAMPT in Cambridge, England.
The Ekpyrotic Theory is directly linked to String Theory - therefore, our universe and our twin will be classified as 'branes', instead of parallel universes though there is very little difference between the two expressions.

Before our universe collided with our siemese twin, our universe was completely frozen. When the brane collided into our own universe it sent the gravitational waves rippling, exciting fluctuations in temperature and density - and above all, it gave rise to matter - a soup of quark gasses. This theory is being recognized as quite a serious theory by physicists, because it seems to be a better alternative to both the standard interpretation of the big bang coupled with cosmic inflation, (when the universe spurted out everything faster-than-light).

The difference with the standard model of big bang and the big bang described by the Ekpyrotic Theory is that it wasn't a big bang at all - paradoxically enough. The cataclysm of big bang in this theory rather states that there was an event when the immense energy in the infant universe quite literally drove it to expansion.

Paul Steinhardt, mentioned just previously say's, ‘'our universe begins in a static, featureless state, that persisted for eons.''

''But how long are we talking about,'' One might ask. The truth is we cannot be sure. We could be talking numbers anything like trillions upon trillions of years. The Ekpyrotic Theory though, isn't too different to the usual parallel universe theory - as each universe exists in a superpositioning as myriad sheets all placed among each other. Accordingly, there was a collision; and this set everything in motion.

As Ovrut explains, ' It's a beautiful idea because it says that all of the particles we see actually arise from one object... a string.'' Weird this isn't it? All these strings’ particles contained in the universe and all universes actually constitute one single mega-string! The only way to describe this is by analogously describing this single string as being like a normal string of cotton. Like any fabric weaved into one single string, it is made up itself of much smaller string, all finely interwoven into each, causing them to join into one single woven string. The strings that represent gravity in this universe can easily flow into another brane, and this is how they all couple to each other. They are closed strings.

 

[Singularitarian]

These qoutes are from new scientist magazine by the way, if anyone wonders.

 

[Piggy]

It's funny, but I can't find any scientific articles on this discovery which suggest that it implies that there was no Big Bang.

Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe

Also, note this:

Astronomers have known for years that, on large scales, the Universe has voids largely empty of matter. However, most of these voids are much smaller than the one found by Rudnick and his colleagues.

In fact, inflationary theory predicts a bubbly kind of universe, with rings of matter surrounding great voids, as slight variations in the extremely early universe are blown up onto enormous scales.

Why this very large void should exist, who knows?

But I'm not finding any evidence that it throws Big Bang theory itself into question.

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation otherwise, or universal redshifting?

 

[Raze]

Singuaritarian, please show me a good reason why I should believe anything you say.

Also, I am still waiting for an answer to this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148206&page=11

A mechanics problem you would be able to solve had you had the required mathematics and physics education to speak as an authority on the big bang.

Consider a system consisting of two different masses, m₁ and m₂, connected by three springs of different spring constants k₁, k₀ and k₂.

|----k₁-----m₁----k₀----m₂----k₂----|​

The masses can slide on a horizontal, frictionless surface. The springs are at their unstretched/compressed lengths when the masses are in their equilibrium positions. At t = 0, the masses are displaced form their equilibrium positions by distances x₁₀ and x₂₀ and released from rest.



(a) Find the equations of motion for each mass using the Euler–Lagrange equation.

(b) Using Similarity Transformation find the Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors.

(c) Find the time dependent position and speed of the masses

(d) Determine the Propagator Matrix.

(e) Describe the Normal Modes of Vibration.

​

I see no reason why someone well versed in the intricacies of general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot solve a sophomore physics problem. And you can expect this to be posted on your threads until you either answer it or prove in some other way that you actually have the required knowledge to comment with any authority on the things you comment on.


If you can't do this, why should I take your word over those who can do this?

 

[Singularitarian]

It's funny, but I can't find any scientific articles on this discovery which suggest that it implies that there was no Big Bang.

Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe

Also, note this:



In fact, inflationary theory predicts a bubbly kind of universe, with rings of matter surrounding great voids, as slight variations in the extremely early universe are blown up onto enormous scales.

Why this very large void should exist, who knows?

But I'm not finding any evidence that it throws Big Bang theory itself into question.

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation otherwise, or universal redshifting?

It's the size in question, for its obsurd from the standard model. It surely is not predicted for this magnitude, given the accurate time-scale in which inflation is required. That is why.

 

[Singularitarian]

Singuaritarian, please show me a good reason why I should believe anything you say.

Also, I am still waiting for an answer to this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148206&page=11

A mechanics problem you would be able to solve had you had the required mathematics and physics education to speak as an authority on the big bang.



I see no reason why someone well versed in the intricacies of general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot solve a sophomore physics problem. And you can expect this to be posted on your threads until you either answer it or prove in some other way that you actually have the required knowledge to comment with any authority on the things you comment on.


If you can't do this, why should I take your word over those who can do this?

No, i refused to answer the question. I will not be tested for my intelligence like some lab rat. I truely did not know the variables one used one time concerning background shifts, big deal, get over it.

I have.

And i have authority to talk about quantum mechanics. I am afterall, a physics sudent.

 

[Zeuzzz]

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation otherwise, or universal redshifting?

Did you read any of the articles I quoted above?

 

[Raze]

No, i refused to answer the question.

Translation: I can't.

I will not be tested for my intelligence like some lab rat. I truely did not know the variables one used one time concerning background shifts, big deal, get over it.

I have.

And i have authority to talk about quantum mechanics. I am afterall, a physics sudent.

My problem is not that you are merely talking about quantum mechanics, etc. I'm a physics student too, and I love to talk about these things- with the humility appropriate for my position as an undergraduate student.



My problem is that you are essentially claiming to have overthrown theories that have been tested and hashed out by people far greater than most of us.

In fact, your posts really show the mark of a crank who has done everything possible to avoid the hard work required to gain worthwhile knowledge of physics.



Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I have not seen any evidence from you that has convinced me, either from your actual posts or evidence that you actually have the qualifications to make such powerful claims. I have, on a couple of occasions, however, seen evidence that you lack fundamental understanding of some of the concepts you claim are wrong. So I don't see how my demand that you prove you actually have truly studied physics long enough to be an authority on the subjects you discuss is all that unreasonable.

 

[Piggy]

Perhaps some experts in cosmology can fill in the details, but if I understand it correctly: Various details about the cosmic microwave background were predicted by the inflationary model, before WMAP discovered them.

Well, there's this.

I think the title makes rather fast use of the word "Confirms", but anyway, there's one success.

Previous results from the satellite focused on the variations in the temperature of the microwave-background radiation, which has cooled over billions of years to a frigid 2.72 kelvins. Tiny variations in that temperature, less than a millionth of a kelvin hotter or colder, revealed details of the primordial density fluctuations that gave rise to stars and galaxies (SN: 2/15/03, p. 99). The new results focus on the polarization of the microwave-background radiation, the tendency of the radiation's waves to vibrate in a specific direction.

The polarization signal reveals that the first stars formed 300 to 400 million years after the Big Bang. That's slightly later than estimates that were based on earlier data from the same satellite, notes cosmologist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago.

Accounting for the polarization was like "removing a fog" says Spergel. It enabled the team to scrutinize more closely than ever before the primordial fluctuations Primordial fluctuations are density variations in the early universe which are considered the seeds of all structure in the universe. These variations originated as quantum fluctuations, and grew from the rapid expansion which occurred during cosmic inflation.

According to the simplest model of inflation, the universe didn't balloon at a constant rate during the early growth spurt. As a consequence, variations in density of matter in the universe ought to be slightly larger on the largest scales--10 billion light-years-than on smaller scales--roughly 100 million light-years. The satellite has now found exactly that pattern, the team reports.

"This is not simply another test of inflation but something that examines the universe during its first trillionth of a trillionth of a second," says Turner. "The entire cosmology community has been waiting for this, excited and worried." The findings "are beginning to shed light on the mechanism [that drove] inflation," he adds.

 

[Piggy]

It's the size in question, for its obsurd from the standard model. It surely is not predicted for this magnitude, given the accurate time-scale in which inflation is required. That is why.

No, no one expected it. But you still haven't shown why this particular discovery somehow throws the Big Bang into a cocked hat.

No one expected the rate of expansion to be accelerating either, but that didn't overturn it. Why does this?

 

[Piggy]

Did you read any of the articles I quoted above?

I hate to say it Zeuzzz, but I consider you a crank, so no, I didn't read them.

 

[Singularitarian]

No, no one expected it. But you still haven't shown why this particular discovery somehow throws the Big Bang into a cocked hat.

No one expected the rate of expansion to be accelerating either, but that didn't overturn it. Why does this?

If it doesn't predict it, it shouldn't have it. Hence, the hot debate to the big bangs validity. What is the point of the big bang, if it cannot confirm observation?