Big Bang Dogma

I think I know what you're talking about. There is an article in Scientific American that talks about dark energy. Try the following link:

www.scientificamerican.com/explorations/...102cyclic/index.html

It is easy to prove that the universe is expanding. All you have to do is whip out your trusty ol' Doppler Shift telescope and you'll see that everything is basically moving away from everything else. To my understanding, we arrive at the Big Bang theory by running the clock in reverse. If everything is expanding, then it must have naturally originated from some point (the "BIG BANG"). However, there is so much that we don't know about the universe, that trying to prove any theory on the origins of the universe are a bit like cave men trying to build a rocket ship to the moon. We simply don't have the knowledege or evidence to conclusivly prove anything yet. However, many experiments are in the works to gather data, such as LIGO (Large Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) and CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) studies.


NAGEL
BS: Electical Engineer (pending)
Minors: Math & Physics (completed)

I read the article. As I think is the case with much of Big Bang cosmology, these people took a very coarse mathematical representation of the universe, did some wild numerical manipulations to make it fit the latest observations, and are convinced that the results still represent reality. Even the science editors are so baffled all they can do is gape in awe at the magical universe(s) the cosmologists have created.

I think eventually technology will provide a critical mass of new observations that contradict the prevailing dogma and topple the Big Bang oligarchy.

I don't think that the big bang theory will go away. There are only two basic ways to go here ... either it's eternal ... or it has a beginning.

Casting one option as being "religious" and therefore false is some very wacky reasoning. I personally think it's going to prove correct by reason of thermo-dynamics, entropy, etc (reasons which cannot be satisfactorily explained by the "eternal - no beginning" alternative) ... and ... NO one would call me "religious".

That's for sure. ;o)

JR says, "It is easy to prove that the universe is expanding." However, by the method he proposes, all you can tell is that galaxy light is redshifted. There are over two dozen causes of redshift known, of which doppler shift is only one. Basically, anything that causes the light to lose energy causes it to redshift.

The article on this web site, "Did the universe have a beginning", shows that observations are consistent with the redshift being caused by energy loss, but are not consistent with a doppler shift explanation.


EBTX writes: "I personally think [the BB is] going to prove correct by reason of thermo-dynamics, entropy, etc (reasons which cannot be satisfactorily explained by the 'eternal - no beginning' alternative)". However, the Meta Model cosmology, recommended on this web site as a possible BB replacemnet model, has no such problem. Although electromagnetic forces are entropic (entropy always increases), gravitational forces are always anti-entropic (always decreases). Gravity organizes chaos into planets, stars, and galaxies; and this can only be reversed by doing work, as in a supernova explosion.

The Meta Model (described in full in "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets" -- available at your nearest science library or for purchase in our store) proposes that the universe is infinite in five dimentions, not just space and time. The fifth dimension is scale. There is no "smallest thing" and no "largest thing", but structure is infinite in both the small and large directions.

This means that electromagnetism and gravity are just two of an infinite number of forces of nature operating on vastly different scales, some entropic and some anti-entropic. But everything remains in perfect balance for all time, throughout space, and on every scale. -|Tom|-

"The Meta Model proposes that the universe is infinite in five dimentions, not just space and time. The fifth dimension is scale. There is no "smallest thing" and no "largest thing", but structure is infinite in both the small and large directions." - TVF

To me, this is not acceptable in a theory since the posited "scale" is out of experimental range (in principle?). If there are other forces, on other scales, inaccessible to us, they are "ad hoc" and can only exist in a theory to make it internally consistent.

I agree that if the universe is infinite in duration, it must have an infinity of scale to be logically consistent with observation ... but I see no compelling reason as yet to believe that it is anything other than finite in duration (which is evidenced by out limited present observations).

I also find the term "entropy" to be somewhat confusing. To me it means "falling down a potential". Thus, when matter falls down a gravitational potential, it has increased the overall entropy of the universe ... because some amount of resulting radiated energy has then gone out into the cosmos forever to wander there because of probability considerations. Hence, the second law of thermodynamics is adhered to in that instance and hence, entropy is increased by way of gravitation.

> [ebtx]: the posited "scale" is out of experimental range (in principle?). If there are other forces, on other scales, inaccessible to us, they are "ad hoc" and can only exist in a theory to make it internally consistent.

If that were true, then no theory could claim that the universe was infinite in size or will go on forever. However, in math, we can reason that straight lines are infinite in length, and have infinitely many points in any segment. Likewise, similar logic based on reasoning from first principles is why all dimensions are infinite in extent in the Meta Model.

This has nothing to do with "internal consistency", and is certainly not "ad hoc". On the contrary, it makes a specific prediction. Some people have always believed that the size of the universe and the divisibility of matter known to them were all that exists, but until now they have always been mistaken in such beliefs. The Meta Model predicts that ever larger structures in the universe and ever smaller entities in the quantum world will continue to be discovered for as long as we look for them.

> [ebtx]: I see no compelling reason as yet to believe that the universe] is anything other than finite in duration (which is evidenced by our limited present observations).

"Yet"? How long do you propose to wait before the observations have extended long enough to conclude that the universe is infinite in duration?

Obviously, that kind of question can only be answered by logic, not by observation. The reasoning uses Zeno's paradoxes and extended paradoxes for matter, and is presented (among other places) in "Dark Matter, ...".

> [ebtx]: I also find the term "entropy" to be somewhat confusing. To me it means "falling down a potential".

That would account for the confusion. "Entropy" is a measure of the disorder in any system. Left on their own, systems based on electric, magnetic, or mechanical properties will increase their disorder, and only by doing work can order be restored. What I pointed out is that gravity does the opposite. Left alone, gravity increases the order of clouds of gas and dust by forming them into stars and planets. Doing work against gravity (as in a supernova explosion) is needed to restore disorder.

> [ebtx]: when matter falls down a gravitational potential, it has increased the overall entropy of the universe

This confuses entropy and energy. Falling down a gravitational potential converts potential energy into kinetic or (on impact) heat energy. But this is not entropy. The result of the fall is that the separate masses are now closer together, which increases the order of the universe (decreasing entropy). -|Tom|-