Cosmological Models and the Big Bang
Chintan Zaveri
learn about the origin of the Universe and have been trying to
understand the Big Bang.
After going through the theory of Big Bang (not in the level of depth
that most educated physicists or astronomers would study), I have
developed some questions on the Big Bang. When I noticed this
sci.astro.amateur group, I felt perhaps, I could ask them here.
(Please forgive me and let me know if I have posted to the wrong group
or if my questions appear silly/too basic to you)
I would appreciate any guidance / pointers to references that would
help me with answers:
1 (a) "According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an
extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common
analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies
with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread." - Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
1 (b) On the same Wikipedia page, there is also a reference to
"primeval atom", which appears to be the accepted theory from which
the Universe emerged. (Please correct me)
QUESTIONS:
- Where did the primeval atom come from?- What was the composition of
the atom? Makes me think, how tremendously intelligent and complex the
composition of this primeval atom would be that upon the Big Bang, it
led to the systematic emergence of numerous galaxies, elements,
compounds, and even life!
- What intelligence created this atom or how did it come into
existence?
- If the overall energy in the Universe is constant, why at a finite
point in potentially infinite past did the primeval atom containing
constant energy burst with a Big Bang?
2. Is redhift of light to longer wavelengths the only base for
accepting that the galaxies are moving away from each other?
3. If, indeed, the galaxies were moving from each other can there be
no other possibility, other than that the Universe is expanding? Is
there any other scientific base with sufficient proof to the theory of
the expansion of Universe?
Thanks in advance for helping me.
Regards,
Chintan Zaveri.
Sam Wormley
It might be easier to think of a quantum fluctuation resulted in
in an inflationary region filling itself with matter and energy
resulting in what we call our observable universe.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
oriel36
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here you go Sam,500 years ago they were doing their best to figure out
planetary dynamics in order to escape the astrological framework -
"Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of
the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In
that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would
believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be
at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus,
A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's
And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa
That is where your 23 hours 56 minutes 04 second value leads - the
rotation of the Earth at the center of a celestial sphere universe
where you promote the framehopping "having its center and
circumference nowhere", for no good reason only that you have no
understanding of the 3 basic planetary facts of shape,rotation and
length of time to rotate once.
It is amazing that a nuisance that I couldn't be bothered replying to
is now your master given that this poster here uses Wikipedia to
inquire about the topic and the fictional 'big bang ' framework is
linked directly to the 'sidereal vs solar time' hoax.
Want to see what 'every-valid-point-is-the-center' looks like while
still retaining the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value for rotation
through 360 degrees -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTTDWhky9HY
The trekkie is your master now Sam by virtue of a quirk of modern
information and computational technology insofar as without
acknowledging the 3 basic planetary facts that are linked together
through the 24 hours/360 degree meridians,anything else will not make
sense and especially structural astronomy -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/03/bing_and_wikipedia/
Davoud
> QUESTIONS:
>
> - Where did the primeval atom come from?
It wasn't an atom in the sense in which that word is commonly used -
but if one goes back to the original meaning of atom as "something that
cannot be cut," i.e., something truly fundamental that is not made of
other things, it _might_ have been an atom in that sense. The fact is
that one knows what it was. It might have arisen from something that is
called a quantum fluctuation. But a quantum fluctuation in what? No one
knows.
> What was the composition of the atom?
Again, it wasn't an atom. I heard one cosmologist call it a "seed" for
want of a better word. No one knows the composition.
> Makes me think, how tremendously intelligent and complex the
> composition of this primeval atom would be that upon the Big Bang, it
> led to the systematic emergence of numerous galaxies, elements,
> compounds, and even life!
There is no evidence that the seed had intelligence. But look up the
"anthropic principle," which gives cosmologists heartburn.
> - What intelligence created this atom or how did it come into
> existence?
Most scientists see no evidence that the seed arose from a decision by
an intelligence, but it cannot be proven that it did not. No one knows
where the seed came from.
> - If the overall energy in the Universe is constant, why at a finite
> point in potentially infinite past did the primeval atom containing
> constant energy burst with a Big Bang?
No one knows.
> 2. Is redhift of light to longer wavelengths the only base for
> accepting that the galaxies are moving away from each other?
Yes.
> 3. If, indeed, the galaxies were moving from each other can there be
> no other possibility, other than that the Universe is expanding? Is
> there any other scientific base with sufficient proof to the theory of
> the expansion of Universe?
The expanding Universe seems to be the best explanation available; it
is corroborated by a great deal of scientific evidence from numerous
sources. Since we are talking about science, however, one cannot be
absolutely sure. If one could be absolutely sure of something that
would be called a religious dogma, not science. Stephen Hawking wrote
in his book _A_ _Brief_ _History_ _of_ _Time_ "...�any physical theory
is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you
can never prove it."
> Thanks in advance for helping me.
You have asked some deep questions to which no one knows the answers.
There are lots of places on the Internet where you can learn what we do
not know about the origin of the Universe. You might seek out Steven
Weinberg's talk on the occasion of the Perimeter Institute's Grand
Opening Gala. The speech was billed as being about the Origin of the
Universe, but after a glowing introduction, Dr. Weinberg's opening
words were: "Thanks very much, Cliff, it's a pleasure to be here. Uh,
I'm afraid, though, nobody knows the origin of the Universe...."
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
Chris L Peterson
>> 2. Is redhift of light to longer wavelengths the only base for
>> accepting that the galaxies are moving away from each other?
>
>Yes.
Actually, there are other observations that support this as well. It is
a natural consequence of General Relativity (which is, of course,
massively supported by multiple lines of evidence); indeed, the
requirement that the Universe is expanding was determined before Hubble
actually demonstrated this through his observations.
The fine scale structure and black body spectral characteristics of the
cosmic microwave background have not been successfully explained by any
theory except one requiring an expanding Universe.
The age of the Universe (assuming its birth in a single point, or at
least tiny volume) is independently obtained from cosmic element
abundances, the age of the oldest stars, the structure of the CMB, and
the extrapolation of expansion as determined by redshift. That
represents powerful evidence of universal expansion.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Chintan Zaveri
Thank-you very much for your replies and for the references! This
should hopefully allow me to understand the Universe in more details.
Kind regards,
Chintan Zaveri.
oriel36
What you are 'understanding' is humanity in full decay,the 'big bang'
concept merely another extension of drawing a conclusion about the
stellar background and forcing observations to fit the conclusion,for
all the hypothesis created for the last 300 years are infected with
the same framework that actually generates a conclusion that once
horrified men 500 years ago -
"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa 1500's
How is it possible that my fellow human beings could actively fight
against the 3 basic planetary facts which link shape,rotation and
length of time for the planet to turn once and contained in the 24
hours/360 degree meridians ?.What possible advantage is there is
finding an alternative value to express the physical geometry
contained in the following set of values which determine the maximum
and minimum rotation speed ? -
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html
It is not just the 'fact' itself,it is the wanton destruction of the
reasoning which arrives at 24 hours/360 degrees and for what !,an
astrological conception of the universe that allows for none of the
great qualities which human being naturally possess.
People must understand that this is not a game,our race cannot afford
a breach of reasoning linking the 3 most basic planetary facts and
substituted with a fictitious set that bears no relationship to
observations or existence.This sole topic centering around planetary
dynamics is the greatest single threat to our race for a people that
can indoctrinated to believe whatever conclusion is placed before them
even when the technical and historical evidence dictates that the
conclusion is in error,will be subject to the worst sort of
ideological slavery and where that dominates,no creativity or joy
exists.
What is the matter with people ?,turn the image through 360 degrees is
the same as 24 hours representing what actually occurs -
http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/Library/books/AK/8-2_files/fig8-2.jpg
This is extremely serious on so many different fronts and regardless
of the injustice of continuing on alone,the observations,technical
details and correct conclusions belong to everyone.
oriel36
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:47:47 GMT, Davoud <s...@sky.net> wrote:
> >> 2. Is redhift of light to longer wavelengths the only base for
> >> accepting that the galaxies are moving away from each other?
>
> >Yes.
>
> Actually, there are other observations that support this as well. It is
> a natural consequence of General Relativity (which is, of course,
> massively supported by multiple lines of evidence)
This is where Newton's absolute/relative definitions leads -
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/topics
And behind it all is the bridge between natural noon and 24 hour noon
-
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions." Newton
Look at all the racket in sci.physics.relativity with everyone living
off insults and storytelling with 'frames of reference' governing it
all and it all began with a guy who wanted to determine longitude with
the celestial sphere by switching the references for daily and orbital
motions.
Disaster or horror movies have nothing on the real thing insofar as no
authority exists ,other than the usenet,to restore some dignity to our
race.
Quadibloc
> - What intelligence created this atom or how did it come into
> existence?
That generally is not the kinds of questions science deals with.
Generally speaking, this kind of question is interpreted as a warning
signal of someone attempting to engage people in a discussion which
will lead to the presentation of an apparently-convincing argument for
the existence of God.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> The trekkie is your master now
Oh, this is just silly. There are many far more energetic and
accomplished amateur astronomers than myself on this forum.
Contributing to an article in Wikipedia no one else seemed to be
interested in tidying up doesn't make me an authority.
If I ever lose a gold ring, I'll suspect you of having dropped it into
a volcano now.
John Savard
Chintan Zaveri
John, Sorry, that is not what my intention was and nor would I dare do
to do so in a scientific group. I do not believe nor disbelieve that
the Universe was created by some intelligence, because I don't know.
This is why I put an "or" in my question. I am trying to understand
this purely based on Science.
Kind regards,
Chintan Zaveri.
Meme Mr. Mustard
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:fVOVl.727776$yE1.683377@attbi_s21...
palsing
Every time you replied with 'We don't know', perhaps you should have
said 'We don't know YET', because science learns as it goes along...
;>)
\Paul A
oriel36
>
> - Show quoted text -
The 'big bang' concept has all the validity of the wandering Sun
'analemma' insofar as it comes from the same style and level of
thinking which forces a geometry into the celestial arena that is not
supported by comon sense let alone observations.
The astrological distortions and novelties reflect one thing only -
the lack of any astronomical authority.
A society that proposes an alternative value which links planetary
shape and rotation characteristics is in serious,serious trouble for
although the 'sidereal time' value can actually be explained as a
timekeeping average,it is impossible to the return of a star to a
meridian using planetary dynamics,the net result being imaginative
monsters such as the 'analemma and big bang' conceptions.
The normal intuitive faculties which affirm of reject observations
based on physical considerations is one of the greatest giifts a human
being has and the suspension of such a faculty is partly due to the
lack of authority or rather an authority which rises above
mediocrity.This has never happened before in human history where the 3
basic facts are turned upside down in order to make a direct
correlation between the return of a star and planetary dynamics and at
complete variance with the known correlation between 24 hours/360
degree meridians which contain the characteristics of the Earth's
shape and daily rotation.
I have mentioned the word 'holocaust' in association with the
switching of references for daily and orbital dynamics from their
original references to the one that generates the 23 hour 56 minute 04
second value and this certainly is true for what society can survive
the loss of information contained for each 4 minutes/1 degree of
geographical separation in terms of planetary shape -
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html
Many I can understand why they do what they do,you included,but to
think that this can go on day in and day out without the slightest
sign of authority is the most disconcerting experience I know of.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Every time you replied with 'We don't know', perhaps you should have
>said 'We don't know YET', because science learns as it goes along...
Perhaps. But questions about the cause of the Big Bang, what came
"before", what is "outside" the Universe... these things may be
fundamentally unanswerable by science, and therefore always remain
purely philosophical questions ("philosophy" = "we don't know" <g>).
Quadibloc
> The astrological distortions and novelties reflect one thing only -
> the lack of any astronomical authority.
But back when there was an authority keeping those astronomers in
line, it didn't work out so well for Galileo.
John Savard
Dave Typinski
>wrote:
>
>>Every time you replied with 'We don't know', perhaps you should have
>>said 'We don't know YET', because science learns as it goes along...
>
>Perhaps. But questions about the cause of the Big Bang, what came
>"before", what is "outside" the Universe... these things may be
>fundamentally unanswerable by science, and therefore always remain
>purely philosophical questions ("philosophy" = "we don't know" <g>).
Y'know... I wrote the exact same thing. Then I thought for a moment
about it and decided that the eventual understanding of such things is
not quite so ... improbable.
I think perhaps a better way to put it is that the question will
remain fundamentally unanswerable /now/, with our /current/
understanding of the nature of mathematics.
But who knows what our concept might encompass a millennia from now?
Or ten millennia, or a hundred? Mathematics coupled with the
scientific method have done some amazing things to expand our
understanding of the universe. It's not impossible that they could
one day surpass what we currently see as a fundamental limit to
inferential logic--i.e., the problem of answering the question of what
started the thing that started the thing that started the thing that
started the universe.
--
Dave
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>Y'know... I wrote the exact same thing. Then I thought for a moment
>about it and decided that the eventual understanding of such things is
>not quite so ... improbable.
I didn't actually say "improbable", because there isn't enough
information to be that specific.
>I think perhaps a better way to put it is that the question will
>remain fundamentally unanswerable /now/, with our /current/
>understanding of the nature of mathematics.
I don't think math has much to do with it. Math is just a tool, and by
itself isn't very useful. There are all kinds of deep physical theories
that are based almost exclusively on math alone (string theory, for
example). To be scientific, you need some kind of testability.
The problem with any questions that take us outside the Universe is that
they may be fundamentally untestable, and therefore fundamentally
unscientific. Or not. A few years ago, the idea of a "cause" for the Big
Bang, or the idea of something "outside" the Universe were seen as
unscientific. However, there are recent theories about [external]
mechanisms that could have produced our universe, and even though they
are forever outside our direct observation, they do actually produce
structural signals on the Universe that are potentially observable.
Thus, they become scientifically valid theories.
In any case, my intent wasn't to place some sort of probability one way
or the other on whether these very fundamental questions will ultimately
be answered, only to point out that their being unanswerable remains a
very real possibility.
Dave Typinski
>wrote:
>
>>Y'know... I wrote the exact same thing. Then I thought for a moment
>>about it and decided that the eventual understanding of such things is
>>not quite so ... improbable.
>
>I didn't actually say "improbable", because there isn't enough
>information to be that specific.
Oh, I know, Chris. I was just summing up the feeling of the issue,
not trying to reference anything you said specifically.
>>I think perhaps a better way to put it is that the question will
>>remain fundamentally unanswerable /now/, with our /current/
>>understanding of the nature of mathematics.
>
>I don't think math has much to do with it. Math is just a tool, and by
>itself isn't very useful. There are all kinds of deep physical theories
>that are based almost exclusively on math alone (string theory, for
>example). To be scientific, you need some kind of testability.
I was using math in the sense that logic is a subset of math, math
being the broader term. Or so I thought. Maybe it's the other way
'round.
>The problem with any questions that take us outside the Universe is that
>they may be fundamentally untestable, and therefore fundamentally
>unscientific. Or not. A few years ago, the idea of a "cause" for the Big
>Bang, or the idea of something "outside" the Universe were seen as
>unscientific. However, there are recent theories about [external]
>mechanisms that could have produced our universe, and even though they
>are forever outside our direct observation, they do actually produce
>structural signals on the Universe that are potentially observable.
>Thus, they become scientifically valid theories.
That, plus the fact that since they're observable, our definition of
"observable universe" just gets extended to encompass that larger
construct. Not directly observable today, of course, but observable
in the same sense that inflation is observable in the details of the
CMBR.
Which, inevitably, will lead to the question of what caused those
external mechanisms to exist... and then, philosophically, we're right
back to square one.
>In any case, my intent wasn't to place some sort of probability one way
>or the other on whether these very fundamental questions will ultimately
>be answered, only to point out that their being unanswerable remains a
>very real possibility.
Oh I know. I wasn't trying to be that literal either. I was making
more of a philosophical comment about the nature of the way we come to
understand how the universe works. Namely that we use certain tools
and as those tools get better, so might the limits to our
understanding.
--
Dave
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>That, plus the fact that since they're observable, our definition of
>"observable universe" just gets extended to encompass that larger
>construct.
I'd be careful with that one. "Observable universe" means something
quite specific: every point in an observer's observable universe is
separated from every other point by a time-like interval. That is, there
is a cause-and-effect relationship between the observer and any point in
the observable universe.
Something outside the observable universe doesn't become part of the
observable universe simply because it produced some observable
structure. We can only make inferences about what is outside the
observable universe, we can never observe it directly.
Davoud
> ...
> > ....
> > But a quantum fluctuation in what? No one knows.
> >
> > No one knows the composition.
> >
> > No one knows where the seed came from.
> >
> > No one knows.
> >
> > Stephen Hawking wrote
> > in his book _A_ _Brief_ _History_ _of_ _Time_ "...�any physical theory
> > is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you
> > can never prove it."
> >
> > > Thanks in advance for helping me.
> >
> > Dr. Weinberg's opening
> > words were: "Thanks very much, Cliff, it's a pleasure to be here. Uh,
> > I'm afraid, though, nobody knows the origin of the Universe...."
palsing wrote:
> Every time you replied with 'We don't know', perhaps you should have
> said 'We don't know YET', because science learns as it goes along...
>
> ;>)
Your point is well taken! I would note, however, that "We don't know,"
in and of itself, in no way precludes the possibility that we will know
in the future. There is a different saying for that -- "We'll never
know." In the every-day world there are many things that we'll never
know.
I'm not convinced that we will know what the Universal Seed was made
of, or if it makes any sense to ask that question. Ditto the beginning
of time. Did the BB occur at a point in time, or did time begin with
the BB? Did the BB occur on its own, or was there a Creator? These have
to be among the most difficult questions in science, no?
You will note that I quote people that I believe to be competent,
serious scientists. I am fairly well read on this subject in the
popular literature and the public lectures that explain without giving
rigorous mathematical proofs or evidence. I know none of this on my
own; I can choose among competing theories according to my own
prejudices, but I can't formulate theories in cosmology or quantum
mechanics. No education in these areas.
Or much else, for that matter :-)
Dave Typinski
>wrote:
>
>>That, plus the fact that since they're observable, our definition of
>>"observable universe" just gets extended to encompass that larger
>>construct.
>
>I'd be careful with that one. "Observable universe" means something
>quite specific: every point in an observer's observable universe is
>separated from every other point by a time-like interval. That is, there
>is a cause-and-effect relationship between the observer and any point in
>the observable universe.
Good to know. I was unfamiliar with the formal definition. Thanks!
>Something outside the observable universe doesn't become part of the
>observable universe simply because it produced some observable
>structure. We can only make inferences about what is outside the
>observable universe, we can never observe it directly.
Cool. So noted.
--
Dave
oriel36
> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:35:16 -0400, Dave Typinski <möb...@trapezium.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Y'know... I wrote the exact same thing. Then I thought for a moment
> >about it and decided that the eventual understanding of such things is
> >not quite so ... improbable.
>
> I didn't actually say "improbable", because there isn't enough
> information to be that specific.
>
> >I think perhaps a better way to put it is that the question will
> >remain fundamentally unanswerable /now/, with our /current/
> >understanding of the nature of mathematics.
>
> I don't think math has much to do with it. Math is just a tool, and by
> itself isn't very useful. There are all kinds of deep physical theories
> that are based almost exclusively on math alone (string theory, for
> example). To be scientific, you need some kind of testability.
>
I do not pretend that you or any individuals from the institutions
involved in this tragedy will understand that this particular view has
a 'ground zero' just as its timekeeping equivalent exists by switching
the references for planetary dynamics however,for an astronomer or a
genuine good person,the huge and reckless leap from terrestrial
ballistics to planetary dynamics which generates these testability/
predictions mantra is first seen here -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion. For instance, if two
globes, kept at a given distance one from the other by means of a cord
that connects them, were revolved about their common centre of
gravity..."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
The loss of the resolution for retrogrades by planetary dynamics or
specifically the Earth's orbital motion through space by creating a
hypothetical 'absolute/relative space' is meant to reduce the reliance
of interpretative astronomy and substitute it with study by
terrestrial ballistics.With modern imaging it is very easy to resolve
the apparent motions of the planets by interpreting it as the orbital
motion of the Earth in our common orbit around the Sun * therefore
those who promote observational astronomy in context cannot possibly
act to diminish it by following ideologies which by nature diminish
it.
The 'BB' concept does not represent the heights of human reasoning but
the lows reached in terms of understanding planetary dynamics and
shape.Far from existing at the fringes of human endeavor,the false
conceptions are at its core and it is time for people and especially
dynamicists to deal with this true tragedy as best they can insofar as
what exists is not freedom to speak and speculate about the Universe
but the slavery of an astrological framework infecting all ahead of
it.
> The problem with any questions that take us outside the Universe is that
> they may be fundamentally untestable, and therefore fundamentally
> unscientific. Or not. A few years ago, the idea of a "cause" for the Big
> Bang, or the idea of something "outside" the Universe were seen as
> unscientific. However, there are recent theories about [external]
> mechanisms that could have produced our universe, and even though they
> are forever outside our direct observation, they do actually produce
> structural signals on the Universe that are potentially observable.
> Thus, they become scientifically valid theories.
>
> In any case, my intent wasn't to place some sort of probability one way
> or the other on whether these very fundamental questions will ultimately
> be answered, only to point out that their being unanswerable remains a
> very real possibility.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com