Concise description of the Big Bang Theory (or ΛCDM models), possible? or not?

[sol invictus]

This is just the big bang, not lambda or CDM:

We are at the exact center, and in all directions all the matter in the observable universe is streaming radially away from us with a speed proportional to its distance.* Because its speed is directly proportional to its distance, going back in time there must have been a single moment in the past when all that matter was concentrated at the center - the future location of the earth.* By measuring the constant of proportionality between speed and distance we can determine how long ago that was, and the answer is about 14 billion years.

*General relativity and the curvature of spacetime allow that statement to hold true for every point.

 

[robinson]

Shower from the Clocktower

Why have you posted here? This could work into a great journal article. BB'ers would love it!

Does BB'ers mean Big Bangers? They have a journal?

I post here because, well, hmm .... give me a minute.































Damn. You know, that is a really hard question. Couldn't you ask about why some people differ on the estimates of how old the Universe is? That would be an easier question you know.

 

[Wangler]

This is just the big bang, not lambda or CDM:

We are at the exact center, and in all directions all the matter in the observable universe is streaming radially away from us with a speed proportional to its distance.* Because its speed is directly proportional to its distance, going back in time there must have been a single moment in the past when all that matter was concentrated at the center - the future location of the earth.* By measuring the constant of proportionality between speed and distance we can determine how long ago that was, and the answer is about 14 billion years.

*General relativity and the curvature of spacetime allow that statement to hold true for every point.

Sol,

This one is good, very straightforward and easy to understand.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The current, observed state of the universe can be successfully modelled assuming everything we can see today was once a hot, dense ball of {what goes here? I need to work on this}. The way the universe evolved from that hot, dense ball can be described using textbook particle physics {insert waystation here}, textbook nuclear physics {until the temperature/density dropped below X/X}, textbook atomic physics {extra phrase needed? or not?}, and above all by the General Theory of Relativity (GR). Just these four sets of theories, together with a small number of 'initial condition' parameter values, are sufficient to accurately account for the observed (large scale) structure of the universe, its composition, and apparent large scale motion of the galaxies.

---------------------------------------------
Needs some editing, and it's a WIP, but not a bad start, methinks.

 

[Molinaro]

Sol,

This one is good, very straightforward and easy to understand.

Sol's explanation highlights the main failing in critics of the big bang. They mainly want to complain about things the big bang does not claim to explain.

 

[INRM]

As it expanded, tiny fluctuations in the vacuum expanded to become the seeds of structure.

Seeds of what structure?


INRM

 

[sol invictus]

Seeds of what structure?

The night sky.

Stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters.

 

[ynot]

The Big Bang Theory (aka Fairy Story?)

Once upon a time (before there was time) all of everything (the universe) was virtually nothing (“infinitely small” - whatever that means). It couldn’t be totally, actually nothing because that would mean something came from nothing, and that‘s not good science (would require an act of magic, aka creation). The infinitely small universe (“singularity”) apparently existed before time existed (no time means no change). In other words, the singularity was in an inert state that didn‘t change. However . . . SUDDENLY! - this infinitely small, all of everything, inert singularity that didn’t change, CHANGED! How can this be? The singularity couldn’t be changed by something externally when all of everything is internal. And a thing that doesn’t change internally can’t change internally. The “scientific” answer seems to be “we don’t know”. The change resulted (among other things) in the singularity universally expanding (not exploding) and it continues to do so today (only space expands, not matter). Is space a "thing" that can expand? However . . . If the singularity then, and the universe now, both represent all of everything, how can a size be attributed to either? What’s the “other thing” that it’s being measured against? How can a thing be measured against itself? If it had a measurable size, surely it follows that it had edges (internal if not external), and it still must have those edges (where are the edges?). Why is infinitely small any more likely than infinitely large? Perhaps an infinitely large singularity could expand in to itself, what does and infinitely small singularity expand in to?

The BBT seems to me to be slap-happy science that apparently accepts stuff that would otherwise be classed as woo.

And they all lived slap-happily ever after?

 

[Tubbythin]

The Big Bang Theory (aka Fairy Story?)

Once upon a time (before there was time) all of everything (the universe) was virtually nothing (“infinitely small” - whatever that means). It couldn’t be totally, actually nothing because that would mean something came from nothing, and that‘s not good science (would require an act of magic, aka creation). The infinitely small universe (“singularity”) apparently existed before time existed (no time means no change). In other words, the singularity was in an inert state that didn‘t change. However . . . SUDDENLY! - this infinitely small, all of everything, inert singularity that didn’t change, CHANGED! How can this be? The singularity couldn’t be changed by something externally when all of everything is internal. And a thing that doesn’t change internally can’t change internally. The “scientific” answer seems to be “we don’t know”. The change resulted (among other things) in the singularity universally expanding (not exploding) and it continues to do so today (only space expands, not matter). Is space a "thing" that can expand? However . . . If the singularity then, and the universe now, both represent all of everything, how can a size be attributed to either? What’s the “other thing” that it’s being measured against? How can a thing be measured against itself? If it had a measurable size, surely it follows that it had edges (internal if not external), and it still must have those edges (where are the edges?). Why is infinitely small any more likely than infinitely large? Perhaps an infinitely large singularity could expand in to itself, what does and infinitely small singularity expand in to?

The BBT seems to me to be slap-happy science that apparently accepts stuff that would otherwise be class as woo.

And they all lived slap-happily ever after?

So what's ynot's preffered cosmology then?

 

[ynot]

So what's ynot's preffered cosmology then?

Do I have to have one? If I can’t provide a “better” answer, do I have to accept the one offered?

Accepting the challenge however - It seems to me that the mechanical properties of an expanding universe could be explained by universally shrinking matter instead of universally expanding space. Perhaps all matter was once an infinitely large singularity that universally shrunk/shrinks and formed/forms in to “clumps” separated by space. Ignoring the everyday motions inherent in the universe, the centers of the clumps would remain the same distance apart but the distance (space) between their outer surfaces would be constantly and uniformly increased (the surfaces would move apart). Perhaps there may be an understanding of gravity there? All human concepts of size have to be abandoned. Sure, it’s pretty wacky, but the BBT is no less wacky to me. Won’t hold my breath for a Nobel.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The Big Bang Theory (aka Fairy Story?)

Once upon a time (before there was time) all of everything (the universe) was virtually nothing (“infinitely small” - whatever that means). It couldn’t be totally, actually nothing because that would mean something came from nothing, and that‘s not good science (would require an act of magic, aka creation). The infinitely small universe (“singularity”) apparently existed before time existed (no time means no change). In other words, the singularity was in an inert state that didn‘t change. However . . . SUDDENLY! - this infinitely small, all of everything, inert singularity that didn’t change, CHANGED! How can this be? The singularity couldn’t be changed by something externally when all of everything is internal. And a thing that doesn’t change internally can’t change internally. The “scientific” answer seems to be “we don’t know”. The change resulted (among other things) in the singularity universally expanding (not exploding) and it continues to do so today (only space expands, not matter). Is space a "thing" that can expand? However . . . If the singularity then, and the universe now, both represent all of everything, how can a size be attributed to either? What’s the “other thing” that it’s being measured against? How can a thing be measured against itself? If it had a measurable size, surely it follows that it had edges (internal if not external), and it still must have those edges (where are the edges?). Why is infinitely small any more likely than infinitely large? Perhaps an infinitely large singularity could expand in to itself, what does and infinitely small singularity expand in to?

The BBT seems to me to be slap-happy science that apparently accepts stuff that would otherwise be classed as woo.

And they all lived slap-happily ever after?

Wow, just wow!!

I see that you're an old-hand here in the JREF forum's Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section ynot.

Sadly, it also seems all to clear that you either do not understand what you undoubtedly have read, or (much worse) cynically, deliberately, and with much malice aforethought misconstrue it (I doubt many other interpretations are fully consistent with the totality of your posting record).

For the record, this fairy tale (your post which I have quoted, and indeed it is a fairy tale) is a grotesque parody of the BBT, or any ΛCDM models.

Have you been completely asleep when it was explained to you, with considerable patience and much dumbing down, that no theory of the origin of the universe is possible until at least viable theory of quantum gravity (or, if you prefer, a quantum theory of gravity) is specified? What part of "GR and the SM are mutually incompatible in the Planck regime" do you not understand??

Do you even realise just you much of a borderline troll this post or yours make you?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Do I have to have one? If I can’t provide a “better” answer, do I have to accept the one offered?

... snip ...

Of course you don't!

However, the topic of this thread, in case your reading comprehension is not up the task, is Concise description of the Big Bang Theory (or ΛCDM models), possible? or not?

(I made it large, and bold, to help you read it).

Your contribution was, as I have said, a grotesque parody, bereft of life, a stiff, passed on, ... and if you hadn't nailed it to your perch, it'd be pushing up daisies!

 

[Tubbythin]

Do I have to have one? If I can’t provide a “better” answer, do I have to accept the one offered?

No. But it might be wise to not refer to a theory that better describes the observational evidence than you can manage a "fairy story" (with or without a question mark). Its the cosmological equivalent of you laughing at some kid in the playground because they only get £1 a week pocket money and then it being found out that you only get 10p.