Talk:Big Bang

I removed the following text between "dominant" and "theory". All current physical theories are incomplete, no?

 , though incomplete,

The problem with that is the Big Bang is portrayed almost universally as the final word in cosmology. Some people that dont see the word incomplete might never think twice about it, and never realize that it is indeed incomplete. -Ionized 16:39, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Old Talk

In 1927, the Belgian priest [Georges Lemaître] was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the redshift in distant nebulae by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity.

What does this mean?

Also, the claim that the universe was initially microscopic is suspect as discussed on talk:Redshift. If the universe is infinite, than it was infinite already at the very first moment. --AxelBoldt

I've made a few corrections - but this is far from complete.

According to this theory, the universe emerged spontaneously between 10 and 20 billion years ago from a gravitational singularity, at which time started and all distances in the universe were zero.

"emerged" implies existence of a previous space - it's wrong

"from a ..." is wrong - the singularity is part of the universe

"time started" assumes two concepts of time, since you can't conjugate a verb in time (e.g. past) if you're talking about time itself.

"all distances...were zero" - if you think of the singularity as a single point, then it's meaningless to talk about distances - a distance only makes sense between two distinct points

A common way to think about this theory is to think of global time and space separately - the theory assumes Weyl's postulate, which states that this is possible. Thinking in this way, space itself has only existed for about 13-17 billion years. Thinking backwards in time towards the "beginning", this "beginning" can be thought of as a gravitational singularity.

The model includes all of space-time, so the question "What was there before the Big Bang?" is meaningless in terms of the standard model.

Because of this, the distance between distant galaxies increases faster than the speed of light. This is possible because special relativity only states that matter and information cannot travel through space faster than the speed of light. It doesn't limit how fast space itself can stretch.

"It doesn't limit how fast space itself can stretch." The stretching of space is not a velocity. "fast" means a change in quantity X with respect to time, usually X=distance. It only has a meaning once you know what definitions of distance and time you are talking about.

Because of this, the change in comoving distance between distant galaxies divided by cosmological time can be greater than the speed of light. This a theoretical concept and not an observational one. For example, galaxies whose light will not reach the Earth for tens of billions of years can be said to be moving away faster than the speed of light according to this definition. This does not violate the laws of special relativity, which is a local theory, which states, among other things, that matter and information cannot travel through space faster than the speed of light, but does not deal with global space-time concepts.

If an observational definition of distance to distant galaxies, e.g. the distance integrated along the path of a photon from a distant galaxy to the observer, using the locally valid distances at each point of the path, is used instead, then the change in this distance divided by cosmological time cannot be greater than the speed of light.

A strict empiricist might say that using the former definition only relates to galaxies which do not exist, in the sense in which chocolates hidden in an unopened box do not exist to the observer, but further discussion of this should go to one of the philosophy pages. --boud

Good points. A couple of comments:

The description of the singularity as "all distances being zero" seems to me to be correct. Even if it is a point, then all distances are zero: you don't need two different points to measure distance. I think it gives the beginner a good picture of what the singularity is like. Also, a point is often thought of as something infinitely or microscopically small, which doesn't fit well with the (most likely) spatially infinitely large universe right after the big bang.

I would move Weyl's postulate out of the first paragraph, which should only outline the highlights of the theory, and explain it later. Most people intuitively separate space and time anyway, so it's no biggie that the theory does the same, except for people who constantly think about spacetime manifolds.

Right now, the first paragraph contains too many "think"s and "thought"s. We should try to find more definite language.

Regarding the different distance definitions: We probably need a page explaining the various defintions of distance in an expanding universe.

AxelBoldt 03:15 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

Who first coined the term? I'd heard he (I know it was a he) who was mocking the idea...--dgd

Who put the bit aboout the K-correction? Nowadays it means something slightly different, but I don't know about the history of the term to know if the reference in the text is right.--AN 00:59 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Regarding the different distance...

i've started with comoving distance

Who first coined...

The reference to Hoyle is there. And yes, that Hoyle is a he, but there's a younger F. Hoyle - Fiona Hoyle - doing observational cosmology research - who's not.

Who put the bit...

Guilty as charged. i've put in wirtz. He published in a journal whose abbreviation is identical with your nick: "AN".

You'd have to read the AN article (in German) to check - i don't have convenient access - so i don't remember whether his K-correction was a magnitude (logarithm of luminosity) correction or the redshift (shift in wavelength). But i agree the definition has probably evolved, though AFAIK this is where the term comes from.

--boud

2004

Critics point out that the Big Bang (BB) represents a "genesis-story" (a scientific creation myth). Critics of what? of the BB ... the universe may have always existed and have no "point" origin (like the origin proposed by the BB and many religions). It's the same thing that the latter part of the article states, the BB generally seems to point to a "creation event" (and why many accept it). Sincerely, JDR

Peak, inserting (in your words) "nonsense" into the Preamble is not sabotage (nor have that been my intent). The proper place to address the non-standard theories is at Non-standard cosmology, though acknowledging them (just a few sentences, which seem like there is now) in the main article is called for (ie. there is valid "nonsense" to consider when understanding the BBT). The improvement to the non-standard cosmology articles are needed, though, and i will focus on them also ... Sincerely, JDR

I think this article is coming along nicely. While I personally will not lay my hands on this article, there are some things that I would change if I did. I would like to see changed the claim the Gamow was the "original" predictor of the CMB, and the only one that predicted its value correctly, since his predictions diverged from the correct value. By 1965, Gamow was not predicting the correct value (please see non-standard talk for reference, Assis and Neves 95.) - Ionized

[Peak] Please note that when Eddington wrote about the "temperature of interstellar space", he was not talking about the CMB. He was writing about starlight. Specifically:

The source of the radiation was taken to be as follows -- 5% from stars at 18,000 deg., 10% 12,000 deg., 20% 9,000 deg, 40% 6,000 deg.; 25% 3,000 deg.

This is a c-n-p off of this pages JDR (PS. you can see the entire thread and the discussion here)

(See Eddington's "The Internal Constitution of Stars", pp 371-377; these page numbers come from the second impression published in 1930.)

Removal of Olber's paradox POV

Curps, I'm wondering why you chose to remove this point of view from the big bang page:

[note: the following character is not stray, but is a quotation mark indicating the beginning of a quotation]

"===Olber's paradox=== - - Olber's paradox is a metaphysical or philosophical debate based on faulty premises, much like Xeno's paradox. Olber's paradox states that the sky should be infinitely bright always. For this to be true, space would have to be a perfect conductor of energy and there would have to be an infinite amount of energy a finite distance from Earth. Neither of these assumptions hold true when compared to reality. In short, Olber's paradox is not a paradox to be solved but a red herring to be discarded. Though Olber's paradox is not relevant in any way to reality, it has been "solved" using the assumptions that the universe is essentially infinite in age and size as well as being completely ordinary with no fantastic, unobservable matter or fantastic, unobservable energies[1]."

Thanks in advance for your consideration and your patience, Curps. - Plautus satire 17:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have just carefully reviewed this edition and I think that it is indeed too colloquial for an encyclopedia entry. I think I know what the problem is, how about if I change "it has been "solved" using the assumptions" to "solutions have been offered using the assumptions"? - Plautus satire 17:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The wording you use is still problematic. I don't have the time right now to go into details. Curps

If you don't have time to properly compose an edit, perhaps it would have been better to postpone the edit until you did have time. I realize there is a strong temptation to overwhelm the presumed opposition with hasty replies, but maybe you could take a break for a while, maybe compose your thoughts, or gather them, or however it is you organize them and come back when you do have time to produce a proper edition. Thank you so much for your consideration of my editions and for your infinite patience on this issue. - Plautus satire 20:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well for starters the part where you say "Hans Alfven has shown that" which is extremely POV (and simply false). As you are perfectly aware. Yet you continue in this fashion.

In your opinion it is false. Where are your cited sources proving what you are now claiming is correct?

The big problem with that paragraph is that Hans Alfven *DOESN'T* (or at least didn't) argue that the redshifts weren't the result of receding

galaxies. The Alfven model presumes that galaxies are receding.

I'm not sure exactly where you got this idea, but Hans Alfven pioneered plasma cosmology and was one of the most vocal proponents of the idea that the universe is infinite and has always existed, not to mention governed by electromagnetic forces much more so than gravity. He did not believe in big bang, and the expansion to which he refers to in his theories was the assumed expansion that was used to explain curious redshifting. Even though he failed to completely understand the implications of his works, Hannes Alfven contributed most dramatically to undermining the big bang hypotheses. For this reason I intend to reinsert the material regarding Hannes Alfven, only this time I will spell his name correctly. - Plautus satire 02:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am pausing because the question of how to deal with the material depends on whether you are willing to move it to a more appropriate page. Curps 21:25, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The sheer volume of material you have added is excessive. Most or all of it should go on Non-standard_cosmology or Beyond_the_standard_Big_Bang_model, or some brand new page.

Consider the Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations page, to which you yourself contributed under the 24.79.3.230 IP address. The material is on its own separate page, rather than cluttering the mainstream page. Curps 19:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If this is the case then all the criticisms of unproven and unprovable black hole hypotheses (and all unproven and unprovable hypotheses) belong on a seperate page. As it stood, there was a pre-existing section titled "weakness and criticism" or something similar so I used it. If you dispute my information then kindly show me where I can find evidence that shows I am wrong. I hate when my errors go undetected. It seems strange to me that suddenly you seek to remove criticisms and weaknesses of unproven and unprovable black hole hypotheses now that I have added a few terse, cogent criticisms. Is that section only for absurd claims that are demonstrably false? Please help me understand. - Plautus satire 20:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are still stuck on your old incorrigible and arrogant ways. The main page on a topic is for mainstream material, or for "genuine" controversies where significant numbers of mainstream practitioners in a field disagree on both sides of an issue. It is not a place where unorthodox views of an extremely tiny minority (a polite way of saying "crank") are presented on a basis of equality with the opinions of the overwhelming majority. There is a home for your material on the pages I have suggested, or perhaps on a brand new page of your own choice. It cannot remain as-is on the current page.

Once again, then why is there a section in the black hole entry for weaknesses and criticisms? And you are now the benign arbiter of what is "mainstream"? And "main page" wikipedia entries are only for "mainstream" data and not all relevant factual data? Once again, who decides, you? I inserted material in a weaknesses and criticisms section of the big bang entry. There were already pre-existing weaknesses and criticisms existing in this section, and some still remain. If you feel these weaknesses undermine the credibility of big bang then perhaps it's time to re-asses the utility of having a "main page" big bang entry. It may be time to delegate "big bang" to "kook science". - Plautus satire 02:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are apparently willing to play by the rules on the moon-landing "hoax" issue by not tampering with the mainstream Apollo page. So why would you not be willing to do so here? Curps 21:25, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Problematic paragraphs. The main problem is that they are uncited, and it's not clear who is making this objection.

Where are all the other citations except wikilinks in that entry? Is every claim backed up by a source? - Plautus satire 02:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Isotropy of observable universe

Critics of big bang point out that that big bang before the ad hoc insertions of dark matter, dark energy and universal inflationary expansion did not predict isotropy unless the Earth was in the approximate center of the universe, and indeed in any incarnation only predict isotropy of the observable universe from the approximate center. As a consequence, isotropy would only support big bang in a geocentric universe. Any other region but the approximate center of a big bang universe would have an anisotropic sky as a result of the spherical or sometimes hyperspherical, toroidal or hypertoroidal shape of the universe predicted by big bang.

Citations??? Pretty much every astronomy paper that has been written in the last fifty years is at adswww.harvard.edu. Can you cite who is making this objection?

This is not rocket science. If you are inside a spheroidal, homogenous universe, any place but the center will give you an anisotropic sky to look at. Hope this helps to alleviate some of your confusion on this issue. - Plautus satire 02:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cosmic background radiation (blast radiation)

Critics of big bang argue that big bang hypotheses state alternately that big bang was an explosion and was not. For purposes of determining what is known as cosmic background radiation, big bang is assumed to have been an explosion, from which we should be able somehow, while being inside it, to see its lingering radiation. For purposes of evaluating observed violations of faster than light motion, big bang is assumed not to be an explosion but an explosive, true genesis of the universe at a tremendous rate.

The big bang is not an explosion in the conventional sense. IIRC, BB Cosmythology spacetime expands (being condensed "prior" to cosmic inflation). JDR

Again. Can you cite the person or persons making this criticism?

Are you familiar with black hole hypotheses? They all invariably dodge the faster than light motion issue by claiming the motion is not motion, but an expansion of the space between everything. And they all invariably refer to "cosmic background radiation" as "proof" of big bang, when it is nothing of the kind. Big bang theory states that at some point in the past the universe was opaque to electromagnetic radiation, and that cosmic background radiation proves that the universe was once opaque. Every time we make a new, better telescope and peer farther into space and farther back in time we see more and more, not less and less. Where is this "opaque" universe? We haven't yet observed it. You can cite ten thousand papers that talk about how opaque the universe once was. Where is the evidence? There is none. Hope this clears up some of your confusion on this issue. - Plautus satire 02:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have a request to make here, in the cosmic background radiation subsection of the supporting evidence section of the big bang entry it states that "it says that as the universe was extremely hot at one point, it should still be a little bit warm even today, and calculations predicted a residual temperature of about 3 Kelvin". Does anybody know where I can verify how these calculations were made? Unless I'm mistaken, these calculations begin with the assumption that big bang occurred, and they also assume that redshift=distance=velocity=age and that the limits of human observation defined the limits of the universe. None of these assumptions is supported by any evidence except evidence resting only in the light of the big bang hypotheses, and these hypotheses are getting more complex and convoluted and more filled with exception than rule every month is seems. This is typical of big bang cosmologers, who often cite circular arguments as "proof" of their claims about big bang. - Plautus satire 03:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Abundance of primordial elements

Critics of big bang point to the claim that there is an abundance of primordial elements in the universe as further circular logic behind big bang. It is assumed by big bang proponents that only big bang could produce deuterium, so any deuterium in a big bang universe must be a result of the big bang, and since deuterium is believed to be rapidly consumed by stars, the age of a big bang universe therefore is finite. Critics note that if big bang did not occur, then there is another way for deuterium to be created. Critics also remark that no evidence has yet surfaced that suggests the universe is being depleted of deuterium. Assumed abundance of deuterium neither verifies nor falsifies big bang hypotheses.

Citations. There have been dozens of attempts to try to generate deuterium, but no one has succeeded. The basic problem is that any situation in which you can generate deuterium quickly becomes hot enough to convert it into helium.

Do you understand what a circular argument is? If the initial premise (big bang) is false, the argument (deuterium could only be created in big bang) has no merit and the conclusion (big bang universe is of finite age, proven by "lack" of big bang, which is proven by assumption that big bang occured and was and is the only possible source of deuterium) is specious. The actual "lack" of deuterium, now, is dependent on the assumption that big bang did occur and is the only process in the universe capable of creating more. The universe is an awfully big place, and electromagnetic energy often does very surprising things, like fusion of deuterium.

Remove Alfven from the redshift argument. Alfven doesn't dispute that the redshifts are receding galaxies. Roadrunner 02:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But Alfven did pioneer plasma cosmology, which today is better able to predict than big bang. Alfven was taught that redshift equals distance, and he knew of no other ways that light could be redshifted, so he carried on in the only framework he knew. Despite this crippling handicap he was still able to break new ground in cosmology, ground that is still unsafe to tread on today. Heretics are still burned at the metaphorical stake to this day. - Plautus satire 02:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved Olber's Paradox here....

Olber's paradox

Olber's paradox is a metaphysical or philosophical debate based on faulty premises, much like Xeno's paradox. Olber's paradox states that the sky should be infinitely bright always. For this to be true, space would have to be a perfect conductor of energy and there would have to be an infinite amount of energy a finite distance from Earth. Neither of these assumptions hold true when compared to reality. Olber's paradox is not a paradox to be solved but a red herring to be discarded. Though Olber's paradox is not relevant in any way to reality, solutions have also been offered based on the assumptions that the universe is essentially infinite in age and size as well as being completely ordinary with no fantastic, unobservable matter or fantastic, unobservable energies[2].

The cited paper is actually a very nice paper. There is one problem. He concludes that Olber's paradox results in finite energy, but he doesn't go ahead and calculate the integral. If he does, he'll find out what people did in the early 19th century when they tried this solution and that is that you end up with the sky being the same temperature as the surface of the stars. The problem with shielding is that if you shield the energy, the shielding will heat until it reaches the same temperature as the radiating object. You don't end up with infinite amounts of energy, but you end up with non-black skies. Roadrunner 02:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Once again, space is not a perfect conductor. It's very good, but not perfect. Conservation of energy rules here. Regardless of the "solution" I offered for Olber's paradox, none of that changes the fact that Olber's paradox is not science. Olber's paradox is more of a metaphysical riddle or joke than a true paradox that needs to be resolved, much like Xeno's paradox. It is offered as support for big bang, so it needs to be balanced with criticism in the weaknesses and criticisms section. - Plautus satire 03:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Olber's paradox contains quite a bit of information refuting the idea that it is anything more than meandering waffle. - Plautus satire 03:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is Criticism Appropriate?

The black hole entry had a pre-existing weaknesses and criticisms section when I started editing it. I simply expanded the section to include some very common criticisms of big bang. If none of these valid criticisms belong in the entry then I would suggest moving all criticism of big bang to its own page rather than have all my relevant editions reversioned again. - Plautus satire 03:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Abundance of primordial elements

The bit on Abundance of primordial elements is faulty. There is no circular reasoning in the following logical sequence, which, if I understand correctly, is the one that's being attacked:

Deuterium will only exist if the big bang theory is true.
Deuterium exists.
Therefore, the big bang theory is true.

Now, the assumpution that "deuterium will only exist if the big bang theory is true" is open to debate, and may be false, but the logic is sound, and in no way circular. Evercat 03:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, perhaps the argument is:

Big Bang is true.
If Big Bang is true, deuterium exists.
Therefore, deuterium exists.
If deuterium exists, Big Bang is true.
Therefore, Big Bang is true!

This certainly would be circular, but I doubt any scientists are stupid enough to reason like this. It strikes me as a straw man. Evercat 03:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Strangely, your argument with yourself is almost as compelling as my persuasive number below:

Interpretation of a perceived lack of deuterium as being evidence for big bang relies on two assumptions. One assumption is that big bang would be the only process capable of creating deuterium. You state this above as "deuterium will only exist if big bang is true". Another assumption is made about the total matter in the universe, which is assumed to be finite as per big bang. This finite size is used to determine amounts of deuterium "expected" from big bang as the only genesis of deuterium. This assumed finite size is determined by calculating the size of the presently observable universe (which is expanding all the time, not by magic, but by the use of better telescopes). The only evidence offered to support the claim that big bang would be the only process capable of creating deuterium is the fact that we can not presently create deuterium. No evidence is offered to support the assumption that the amount of matter in the universe is finite, and all indications are that the total amount of matter in the universe is infinite. We haven't yet seen the "edge" of the universe. The farther we look the more we discover that the universe is pretty much the same all over. A homogenous universe is not consistent with big bang, which predict the farther away you observe, the more different and strange the universe should become. What we find from observation is that the more we look the more we find the universe is bland and predictable. Just not predictable by failing hypotheses like big bang and black hole, to say nothing of the riotous unobservable dark matter and dark energy. - Plautus satire 03:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since I feel it may be overlooked, let me point out that my long-winded description boils down to Evercat's "straw man" hypothetical argument. Big bang cosmologers do indeed begin by assuming big bang is true. Their methods dictate that they do so. - Plautus satire

P.S.: Am I the only one who feels very silly when trying to compose reasonable sentences describing a circular argument? - Plautus satire

Quasar evidence

Just to fend off any possible criticism of my insertion of the criticism of relying on quasar evidence to support big bang, I cite the following:

"This galaxy which shows a plasma bridge connecting it to its infant quasar was spotted and image-processed by Sotira Trifourki of Manchester Astronomical Society. Her image-processing reveals that the jet continues well past the quasar. This recalls the discredited Steady State Theory of Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi and Thomas Gold! They said “Galaxies breed Galaxies, generation on generation”."[3]

And this:

"The proper motion of TON 202 is perpendicular to the orientation of its radio lobes (Rogora et al., 1986). If it is truly as far as its redshift implies (z=0.362) its tranverse velocity would be of the order of one thousand times the speed of light, a clear indication that the cosmological redshift hypothesis is completely untenable. Which leads us to conclude that this quasar is a star within our galaxy (Varshni, 1973, 1974a, 1974b, 1975, 1979, 1982, 1988) the strong optical emission lines are due to recombination laser action in a rapidly expanding stellar atmosphere."[4]