Big Bang analogy

Yeah-- you claim you can do just that and collect your monthly salary.

Here's two short Planck Density equivalents for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_density

It is a large unit indeed is that. It's amazing how it could squeeze into such a small space. Does it just fit or would there be room for anymore if "about" was a few billion moons extra?

Frankly it would probably be better to describe the BB as a creation event which happened outside of physics, ie. religious, with a scant (IMO) chance of finding it in Quantum Mechanics.

1. We must remember that God created a rainbow as a promise that there would never again be a flood. A few thousand years later somebody decided that a rainbow is more likely an optical illusion simply due to the refraction of light. Along with the "green flash" of sunsets, the prismatic effect, gravitational lensing, and mirages.

2.In the 1930's Hubble noticed that the further away (by simple triangulation) a light emitter was the more that the light was "red shifted". This has resulted in a quest for the "Hubble Constant". The Hubble Constant has so far proven to be very elusive. Kind of like "God's Love" as evidenced in Darfur, Kosovo, and Hitlerian Europe.

3.Since light will be "red shifted" simply as a result of spacetime (which is a derivative of distance and gravity) it may prove more profitable in the long run to simply disregard the BB as an attempt to understand the Universe. That "red shift" which when backed up or reversed seems to indicate a BB is more likely (IMO again) to be simply an optical illusion due to the mechanics of light and wave theory.

4. Considering that some 50% to 90% of taxpayers cannot conceive of a universe that is both eternal and evolving you are not likely to find the pursuit of an ultimate truth financially rewarding. You will make more money much more easily as a Pope,a politician,a lawyer, or a preacher.

5.Look up and study the observations of quasars particularly with respect to their "red shifts" and interactions with nearby objects. Stay away from State Policemen with laser guns. They work very well in the same spacetime. The same may not be true when differing spacetimes are involved. I spent several dollars to check this out.

6.Read a book named "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric somebody.
His physics may be a little shakey but at least the concept is there. Amazon probably has it. I just lent my copy out.

7. One thing to think about is the fact that the light we see has probably been falling towards Earth for some umpteen thousands or millions or billions of years. The BB theory requires that this light remain unaffected for the duration. If one concedes that spacetime may have an effect upon the wavelength of light the BB kind of disappears. Einstein showed in 1929 with Eddington in South Africa that it does. It has since been substantiated with better equipment.

8.The BB cannot really be described as a nuclear explosion. At the time of the "theorized" BB there was no matter to explode or more accurately fuse or fissionize. It (if anything) was in a quantum state of disassociation. Wanna buy a bridge

9. Look up (search) red shift, Hubble Constant, quasars.

10. Look at the "Hubble telescope Deep Field" display. Might make you wonder....

PS The BB requires an expansion OF space --NOT within space.

Yeah, so my big problem with the BB from a completely naturalistic stand point is this: where did it come from/how did it come/how did nothing come from nothing?

As far as I can tell 1+1=2 but 0+0=0. In other words nothing makes nothing , but something can make something.

Any explanation for this?

When you examine the BB theories you will soon come upon a set of conditions which can only and fairly (IMO) natch be described as religious.

BB theory starts with a BB event and its preconditions (if any) cannot be described by the theory.

Since there is a fair reason to think that the red shift observed and used as justification for the Big Bang-Expanding Universe theories is simply an optical illusion caused by the interactions of light with space-time I along with Eric Lerner and quite a few others discount the theory severely.

So, if your teacher is a "Big Banger" you had better give him the answers he wants and reserve the facts for yourself. The BB is most probably simply another "Creation Myth" adapted from the "Old Testament" for modern times.

cite plz

Hi Vengo,

Start with reading about the Einstein-Eddington experiments in South Africa about 1929.

Look up the Hubble "Deep Field" pictures in which gravitational lensing is observed. (They are on the net)

Look up the "Harvard Tower" experiments. They are also on the net somewhere but I've lost them but I will synopsize all of these first.

Eddington showed that starlight is affected as it passes the sun.

Deep Field shows that light is affected as it passes massive objects.

The Harvard Tower experiments shows that photons become measureably more energetic when aimed down. They used only about 75 feet if I remember right. Conversely it is pretty well accepted that they lose energy coming up out of a gravity well. That is mentioned in any first year astronomy class. Mine was "Introduction to Astronomy" Stanford University (a taped course). I could probably send it to you if you are really interested.

Remember "red shifted"=longer wave length=less energetic---
"blue shifted"=shorter wave length=more energetic

So there will be a red shift factor caused only by space-time and without accounting for this one cannot fairly say that the Universe is expanding. This should not be too hard to come up with but I am not too sure of my math and so far have not come up with anyone that has factored this in. It is popularly assumed to cancel out and to make a BB work it must cancel out. But if you regard photons as little billiard balls in a thought experiment they don't seem to. If it did cancel out you wouldn't have the anomalies that reputedly occur particularly around some quasars. This particular problem is discussed on page 148 of the book below.

The concept of a Universe sans Big Bang is discussed in

"The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J. Lerner,Vintage Books, 1992.

(Im not too sure of his physics (mechanics ) either but his discussion of anomolies in the red shifts is worthwhile)

Vengo, I made sure that if you search "Harvard Tower Experiment" you will get to the right place in the discussion.

Vengo, I will be off the net for the next couple of months after Monday Mar 2. Please don't think I am disinterested. I will be studying wave theory from a sailboat in the Gulf of Mexico. A secondary interest will be in developing melantonin with exposure to sunlight.

Sorry for the late response, but here goes.

It seems to me that to assume that the observed redshift is due to gravitational effects, we would have to assume that the earth lies at the top of an enormous gravity well.

This very well could be!

The way that I have tried to figure it out is to determine the accelerations of space (both negative and positive) for various radii from the sun and relate that to changes in wavelength.

For instance at 1 AU (distance from Earth to Sun) the accelerations due to gravity are about one million miles per day. Then use the inverse square law of gravitation to work out from here to the edge of the universe or to any other massive object that you want. Betelgeuse perhaps? You will have to figure in the accelerations due to the galaxies involved etc. For the first few radii you can use the well known and accepted planetary information. After that weLL!

If you are interested that'll keep you busy till I get back

I am sure (hopeful) that somebody better versed in math than I has done this but so far I haven't found it.

There is quite a lot of new stuff on Wikipedia (search red shift) but I am going sailing. Good Luck!!!

I just don't see any reason to suspect that the density of the universe increases as distance from the earth increases. Not only that, but I'm not entirely sure that this sort of increased density would even create the observed effect, since, if I'm not mistaken, a beam of light entering and then exiting a gravitational well would first gain and then lose energy, causing it to come out the other side at the same frequency it entered.

With the exception of a few fringe elements no one accepts the ideas "aka" is describing. This all started with the idea of "tired light" described by Fred Hoyle in 1949 in an attempt to hold off the death of his steady state theory of the universe. Unfortunately this has never been reliably observed.

It is a foundation principle that the cosmic red shift we see is due to the expansion of the universe. If fact, as the "standard candles" are better refined, along with new observations (COBE) the data simply reinforces that idea.

There are red shift component due to local velocities but these can be accounted for. The largest gravitational red shifts are seen related to neutron stars and the largest I am aware of are about z=0.4. The largest red shifts due to cosmic expansion are on the order of z = 7. Gravitational red shifts relative to black holes or quasars are not important as the radiation we see emanating from these objects are from an accretion disk that does not lie inside the object's gravity well.

How much energy was involved?

Simple for our hubble sphere - a lower limit on energy could be modelled as:

10 ^ 26 stars * 10 ^ 32 kg per star * 10 ^ 17 joules per kg = 10 ^ 75 joules

How did the energy come from nothing?

It didn't - it perhaps came from an energy exchange bewteen two 3-branes creating a new geometry 3-brane.

How about two 3-branes (one positive and one anti - just too cutely make this zero net energy) geometrically attract and that attraction provides the energy for a brane - anti-brane reaction that creates the big bang and forms a new 3-brane of existence - with an energy signature of say 10 ^ 80 to 10 ^ 100 joules - that would pretty neatly give you the initial conditions for a creation event with the residual CMB we see today - and about the right distribution of observable matter and energy within our observable Hubble sphere.

Don't assume that our form of existence is due to the only creation event in history versus a creation event in our history!

This model assumes 1, 2, 3 and even 4 or higher dimensional branes exists, and/or the universe is far larger than we can observe and/or their are hidden dimensions of spacetime wrapped up in Calabi-Yau manifolds, and that these branes of existence can sometimes react and change.

The BB idea is bad physics and bad theology rolled into a package.

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that. That would be a final condition.

Likewise having an omniscient and omnipotent God suddenly decide to create a universe 6000 or 17B years ago (doesn't matter) while the idea had never occurred to him previously, is basically idiotic and an obvious logical conundrum.

Basic reality is most likely that the physical universe itself, like God, is eternal, and that the creation stories you read in antique literature refer to the creation of our own local environment, and not the universe.

Once you get to a high enough energy / matter density yes a black hole forms, but here's where it get tricky - you leave behind the framework where relativity holds sway and the framework - its topology and laws are more likely to governed by quantum gravity - given the four forces recombine.

We don't know quantum gravity's rules - but to assume they are the same as relativity is likely a mistake judging from the aftermath of the Big Bang!

You might find for example if you concentrate too much energy in a point form - you dramatically increase the chances of a brane / brane interaction - given that gravity - the weakest of all forces - may be the only force that not only flows within a brane but can travel across branes! The physics of a brane / brane interaction - might readily permit inflation under quantum gravity whereas under relativity it does not.



Again this risks giving motive to an little known external force or agency. Maybe god does this all the time for all eternity all over the place with just slight tweaks to the initial parameters for each case. Then this fits well with String theory all - and we just happen to be in a situation where things are developing pretty well. This also answers why is our universe so well suits to support intelligent life - answer - because of potentially many trials - this one works!



Maybe!

Maybe not.

Who knows eh?

I liked the "four forces recombine". Pub/cash/garter-belts/ ooops.