Holes in Big Bang

[Singularitarian]

Are you saying there's no inflationary model that could explain this?

If so, why hasn't this discovery caused the same sort of stir that accelerated expansion caused?

It did actually cause a stir, as i said in the OP, a PhD i was consulting with at the time was making his way to their laboratory. He wasn't convinced, suffice to say, its hard to ignore the evidence. Why the big bang persists today, is, dare i say it, pure dogma, a topic a few have already covered today.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Okay, fair enough.

Any supporting evidence to back up your claim that I am a crank? Or you just going to post un-substantiantiated pejoratives?

I dont think your a crank. But If I did I would outline clearly why.

(bold added)

I won't speak for anyone else, but here is some such evidence:

a) in the very thread you referenced, you posted a great deal of material, but when JREF Forum members tried to engage you in discussion, by asking questions about the material you presented, you didn't respond

b) in numerous threads, you have been caught telling porky pies (lies), some of them pretty darn bald-faced

c) in promoting a crackpot (a proponent of the Electric Universe nonsense), you called him an academic, declared he had lots ("numerous") publications in relevant, peer-reviewed journals which had been cited many times; when confronted with reality, you ran away ...

There's more, but I think that will do for now ...

... OK, maybe not ... the fundamental scientific flaw in Lerner's plasma cosmology - per your own presentations - the thing that makes it the very definition of scientific woo, was pointed out to you (several times, IIRC). That you openly choose to re-present it, knowing full well that it is crackpottery, makes you a crank, does it not?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

Actually some type of "background radiation" was observed and postdicted long before BB theory became vogue. Many models chalked it up to ordinary starlight.

Has it really been falsified?

Hasn't it? If not, what exactly will it take to kill it off once and for all?

It seems to me that the model is still useful for analyzing the Universe.

How so?

What alternative model would you put in its place?

Me? Well I'm a big fan of PC/EU theory personally.

More value than having no theory at all.

But I'm not proposing "no theory at all".

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.

It seems to me that the net scientific value of any theory is not dependent upon whether or not you can replace it with something else, but how well it stands on it's own merits and how well it's "predictions" pan out. I can falsify any belief without having something "better" to replace it.

 

[Raze]

And how would our meritable science student suggest modifying it? I mean, there are only few choices to have, and the big bang is practically holding onto one with its dear life.

That is for those with enough education to answer the question. I personally do not have enough understanding of physics at this point to answer it.

However, I have the integrity to admit it. I believe that you are also not qualified and that you do not have that integrity.


Basically, until I am fully qualified to answer the question, I will at the very worst remain agnostic on it. I will not tell people who are far more knowledgeable than I about the subject that they are dead wrong. When I become qualified to answer the question, then I will answer it.

 

[Piggy]

It did actually cause a stir, as i said in the OP, a PhD i was consulting with at the time was making his way to their laboratory. He wasn't convinced, suffice to say, its hard to ignore the evidence. Why the big bang persists today, is, dare i say it, pure dogma, a topic a few have already covered today.

It's my impression that it persists primarily because there's no other available framework to explain observations regarding expansion and the cosmic microwave background.

I don't think anyone believes, though, that we have a confirmed model.

You're right, there are problems with everything. There's never been a confirmation of any particular model.

But in the absence of having any specific model that accounts for all the observations -- which I don't think anyone claims to have -- it still sure looks like we go back to that gumball.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are you saying there's no inflationary model that could explain this?

I think it is more scientifically accurate to suggest that no current inflationary model "predicts" this. I'm sure some form of "holey dark flow inflation" could be dreamed up given enough time and enough effort and it might indeed fit the current observations, but how is that really scientifically helpful? All we are doing is "postdicting' a new fit based on even more hypothetical properties of metaphysical entities and current inflation theory will still have failed yet another of it's key predictions. When do we just let a theory die a natural death?

 

[Zeuzzz]

As singulatarian says, indeed, if expansion or inflation does not pan out then the Big Bang theory and many subsequent models predicated on these concepts will have to be completely taken back to the drawing board. And the theories aforementioned in this thread by me all have credence added to them the more evidence supports their predictions, most of which clearly contradict the predictions of BBT. MJ Disney puts it rather well in this article:

MJ Disney - American Scientist, 2007 - astro.umd.ed
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3716,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

Big Bang cosmology is not a single theory; rather, it is five separate theories constructed on top of one another. The ground floor is a theory, historically but not fundamentally rooted in general relativity, to explain the redshifts—this is Expansion, which happily also accounts for the cosmic background radiation. The second floor is Inflation—needed to solve the horizon and "flatness" problems of the Big Bang. The third floor is the Dark Matter hypothesis required to explain the existence of contemporary visible structures, such as galaxies and clusters, which otherwise would never condense within the expanding fireball. The fourth floor is some kind of description for the "seeds" from which such structure is to grow. And the fifth and topmost floor is the mysterious Dark Energy, needed to allow for the recent acceleration of cosmic expansion indicated by the supernova observations. Thus Dark Energy could crumble, leaving the rest of the building intact. But if the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come crashing down. Expansion is a moderately well-supported hypothesis, consistent with the cosmic background radiation, with the helium abundance and with the ages inferred for the oldest stars and star clusters in our neighborhood. However, finding more direct evidence for Expansion must be of paramount importance.

In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift—indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.[.....]

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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)

OK, let's start at the beginning, shall we?

First, please let's have a reference to the published *paper* which first presents the conclusion that there may be this giant void.

Next, let's see what other, subsequent, papers cited it (and any others which, more or less simultaneously, reported the discovery).

Then, how about we read those papers.

In parallel, how about we have the papers which present a case that a void of this size/whatever - if it turns out to be such - CANNOT be accommodated in ANY version of ANY big bang theory, even in principle, period.

You talk about doing homework; the brief summary above is about the minimum expected from someone making claims as radical and sweeping as the ones you have made.

Comments or questions?

Oh, and "CBM"? As in "Centers Business Management"? or "Curriculum-Based Measurement"? ...

 

[Singularitarian]

It's my impression that it persists primarily because there's no other available framework to explain observations regarding expansion and the cosmic microwave background.

I don't think anyone believes, though, that we have a confirmed model.

You're right, there are problems with everything. There's never been a confirmation of any particular model.

But in the absence of having any specific model that accounts for all the observations -- which I don't think anyone claims to have -- it still sure looks like we go back to that gumball.

Think of inflation as the ground upon which the empire state building stands. Remove it, and the entirity of the theory falls to its doom.

If we have devoid area's of matter which cannot be predicted by inflation, then there is not enough time in the early universe before inflation to counter such a large void. If there is not enough time, then inflation could not have started the time it had. But if inflation happened much later, we would not observe the universe we do today, this is fact.

So if there is not enough time, then the universe could not have had a unique structure or radius, beginning from a singular region in space. This ''not enough time stuff'', is essentially the stuff itself which makes big bang more and more increadible.

 

[Raze]

Don't give me that *******. You telling me, as a science student, you don't have any pet theories, or is it that your imagination lacks you somewhat in any originality?

lol. Yes! But I keep them on the back burner until I get enough mathematical knowledge to tackle them.


However, there are two things I would like to address your question with:

1) I have learned first hand the dangers of thinking you know when you really don't. After getting through the intro physics classes and starting the 3000 level courses (upperdivision), my respect for those with graduate degrees went way up. Because I began to taste firsthand how much work and knowledge it takes to have that piece of paper with your name on it.

2) I keep all of my pet theories SECRET until I can formulate them in a way good enough that they can be published.

That way no one with better knowledge and math skills can steal my idea and take credit for it.

Naturally that serves two purposes: it keeps my original ideas away from potential thieves, and it also keeps a physics student from annoying physics graduates with horrible theories that only appear good to me because I haven't the knowledge yet to see that they are horrible.




What I would advise you to do is be humble, especially when there is a chance you can learn something, but more importantly! This: Keep your ideas to yourself until you have hashed them out well enough to publish them, even if in a laymen publication.

The "e-cred" you get for having a neat theory is complete garbage to the clout and accolades you would get for a complete theory being published in a peer reviewed publication.

 

[Singularitarian]

OK, let's start at the beginning, shall we?

First, please let's have a reference to the published *paper* which first presents the conclusion that there may be this giant void.

Next, let's see what other, subsequent, papers cited it (and any others which, more or less simultaneously, reported the discovery).

Then, how about we read those papers.

In parallel, how about we have the papers which present a case that a void of this size/whatever - if it turns out to be such - CANNOT be accommodated in ANY version of ANY big bang theory, even in principle, period.

You talk about doing homework; the brief summary above is about the minimum expected from someone making claims as radical and sweeping as the ones you have made.

Comments or questions?

Oh, and "CBM"? As in "Centers Business Management"? or "Curriculum-Based Measurement"? ...

This discovery was only a few years ago at best, maybe not even that long. Also, i don't have a paper, but i know its real because i have consulted with a physicist involved in its discovery. So i will not be worried about that view of things thanks.

If you're wanting fresh results, you are a bit too eager. That is not the way science works, and very rarely in such a short period of time.

ps. CBM, Cosmic Background Microwaves

 

[DeiRenDopa]

As singulatarian says, indeed, if expansion or inflation does not pan out then the Big Bang theory and many subsequent models predicated on these concepts will have to be completely taken back to the drawing board. And the theories aforementioned in this thread by me all have credence added to them the more evidence supports their predictions, most of which clearly contradict the predictions of BBT. MJ Disney puts it rather well in this article:

MJ Disney - American Scientist, 2007 - astro.umd.ed
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3716,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

Please correct me if I'm wrong Z, but didn't you post this before, in another thread?

And in the subsequent discussion, wasn't Disney's core thesis basically ripped to shreds (as a) badly misrepresenting the relevant science, and b) internally inconsistent)?

If I'm right, what's with regurgitating material you presented before, material that has been intensively discussed and your conclusions and interpretations shown to have no legs?

 

[Wowbagger]

Actually some type of "background radiation" was observed and postdicted long before BB theory became vogue. Many models chalked it up to ordinary starlight.

I'm taking about details. Precise measurements of phenomena found within the CMB.

Hasn't it? If not, what exactly will it take to kill it off once and for all?

When something better comes along. And, by better, I mean something that makes better, more precise predictions than BB ever could. Especially if they are completely novel ones.

How so?

I think Wiki explains this well:

A number of theories of inflation have been proposed that make radically different predictions, but they generally have much more fine tuning than is necessary. As a physical model, however, inflation is most valuable in that it robustly predicts the initial conditions of the universe based on only two adjustable parameters: the spectral index (that can only change in a small range) and the amplitude of the perturbations. Except in contrived models, this is true regardless of how inflation is realized in particle physics.

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

Me? Well I'm a big fan of PC/EU theory personally.

Perhaps you can explain how it does a better job?

It seems to me that the net scientific value of any theory is not dependent upon whether or not you can replace it with something else, but how well it stands on it's own merits and how well it's "predictions" pan out. I can falsify any belief without having something "better" to replace it.

That is not going to satisfy professional cosmologists, who have a responsability to solve physics problems.

Tossing out a theory, without having a better replacement, is counter-productive.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

OK, let's start at the beginning, shall we?

First, please let's have a reference to the published *paper* which first presents the conclusion that there may be this giant void.

Next, let's see what other, subsequent, papers cited it (and any others which, more or less simultaneously, reported the discovery).

Then, how about we read those papers.

In parallel, how about we have the papers which present a case that a void of this size/whatever - if it turns out to be such - CANNOT be accommodated in ANY version of ANY big bang theory, even in principle, period.

You talk about doing homework; the brief summary above is about the minimum expected from someone making claims as radical and sweeping as the ones you have made.

Comments or questions?

Oh, and "CBM"? As in "Centers Business Management"? or "Curriculum-Based Measurement"? ...

This discovery was only a few years ago at best, maybe not even that long. Also, i don't have a paper, but i know its real because i have consulted with a physicist involved in its discovery. So i will not be worried about that view of things thanks.

If you're wanting fresh results, you are a bit too eager. That is not the way science works, and very rarely in such a short period of time.

ps. CBM, Cosmic Background Microwaves

(bold added)

Thank you for the clarification.

Really, really basic question Sing: what do you consider to be the primary source documents (or materials) in contemporary astronomy (or cosmology)?

 

[Singularitarian]

(bold added)

Thank you for the clarification.

Really, really basic question Sing: what do you consider to be the primary source documents (or materials) in contemporary astronomy (or cosmology)?

Primary source of intelligence remains in particle physics papers for me, i'm afraid. The cosmology i know about is purely fundamental, as i have explained before. It just so happens i can talk about the fall of big bang, if inflation is wrong, because i undertand the planck time, and its considerable applications to quantum cosmology.

 

[Wowbagger]

I'm sure some form of "holey dark flow inflation" could be dreamed up given enough time and enough effort and it might indeed fit the current observations, but how is that really scientifically helpful?

We would have a more accurate model to work with, when making future observations.

All we are doing is "postdicting' a new fit based on even more hypothetical properties of metaphysical entities and current inflation theory will still have failed yet another of it's key predictions.

Like all good theories before it.

Do you think gravity has been falsified, because Einstein made corrections to it?

When do we just let a theory die a natural death?

I suspect it will stick around, as long as it remains useful to cosmologists.

 

[Piggy]

I think it is more scientifically accurate to suggest that no current inflationary model "predicts" this. I'm sure some form of "holey dark flow inflation" could be dreamed up given enough time and enough effort and it might indeed fit the current observations, but how is that really scientifically helpful? All we are doing is "postdicting' a new fit based on even more hypothetical properties of metaphysical entities and current inflation theory will still have failed yet another of it's key predictions. When do we just let a theory die a natural death?

Yeah, but there's a difference between unpredicted discoveries that require new models within the broad theoretical framework, and unpredicted discoveries that overturn it. Evolution has been through a bunch of the former and it still stands.

And no, it's not postdicting.

Models are built on what is known.

Every new model is developed within a set of knowns. (Taking what's known into account isn't postdicting.)

Then we make testable predictions and go out and see if what we've got works.

If this discovery requires a different set of proposed models -- and we've never had any that have been confirmed -- well, ok.

But to say that the Big Bang framework itself needs to be tossed... that requires some heavier guns.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(bold added)

Thank you for the clarification.

Really, really basic question Sing: what do you consider to be the primary source documents (or materials) in contemporary astronomy (or cosmology)?

Primary source of intelligence remains in particle physics papers for me, i'm afraid. The cosmology i know about is purely fundamental, as i have explained before. It just so happens i can talk about the fall of big bang, if inflation is wrong, because i undertand the planck time, and its considerable applications to quantum cosmology.

(bold added)

Thanks for the clarification.

What is "quantum cosmology"? How is it related to "the big bang theory"? What is the relationship between quantum cosmology and inflation (as you understand inflation)? What phenomenology is there concerning "the planck time"?

Which paper - published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - may an interested reader refer to to compare your answers to the above questions to the common views found in the cosmology community?

 

[Piggy]

As singulatarian says, indeed, if expansion or inflation does not pan out then the Big Bang theory and many subsequent models predicated on these concepts will have to be completely taken back to the drawing board.

I don't think so. Tell me this: How do you look at what we've got, and not eventually get back to that gumball?

It's been a devil of a time running it back forward to figure out just how we got from the gumball to here, but I don't see how you look at the current situation and run it backward, by any means, to something other than a Big Bang.

 

[Piggy]

Think of inflation as the ground upon which the empire state building stands.

Ah, but there's the problem. It's not.

The ground is the red shifting and the cosmic background radiation.

Take those two together, along with the existence of galaxies and a few other big facts, and when you look backward, you eventually get to a Big Bang.

Inflationary models were proposed to explain how we got from there to here with the particular kinds of details we see. And so far, no one's come up with a model that we can put a fork in.

All our current models could be wrong, though, and when we look in our rearview we still see that damn gumball.