The Big Bang-The Expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang

ansar.tajudeen

Yours is an interesting post, but I think it reveals some misconceptions. For example, you state:

The conclusion to be derived from this model is that at some point in time, all matter in the universe was crushed together in a single point-mass that had "zero volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of this point-mass that had zero volume and this explosion has come to be called the "Big Bang"…

I think that in his book “A Brief History of Time” (p. 129), Stephen Hawking provides a better description:

The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus, the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy… During the inflationary phase [of the early universe], the universe increases its size by a very large amount. Thus, the total amount of energy available to make particles becomes very large. As [Alan] Guth has remarked, “It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch.”

I therefore question your statement that “all matter in the universe was crushed together in a single point-mass that had ‘zero volume’ because of its immense gravitational force.” It seems, rather, that initially there was totally nothing (neither positive nor negative energy), and as I point out in the first chapter of my book at www.zenofzero.net, evidence suggest that, in total, everything in our universe (energy, momentum, charge, etc.) still sums to exactly zero.

You also state:

With ample evidence discovered by science, the thesis of an "infinite universe" was tossed onto the scrap-heap of the history of scientific ideas. Yet, more important questions were forthcoming: what existed before the Big Bang? What force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?… There is a single answer to be given to the question of what existed before the Big Bang: God, the All-powerful and the Almighty, Who created the earth and the heavens in great order.

Unfortunately, though, “the God answer” is not scientific, because it contains no testable predictions. I think that, instead, Edward Tryon advanced a hypothesis that has a better chance of leading to testable predictions. In his article published in Nature in 1973 (vol. 248, pp. 396-397), he wrote:

If it is true that our Universe has a zero net value for all conserved quantities [such as electrical charge, momentum, and total energy], then it [our Universe] may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum [i.e., the original “zero” or “total nothingness”], the vacuum of some larger space [which stretches the meanings of the words “vacuum” and “space”] in which our Universe is imbedded. In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things [that] happen from time to time.

Testing such an idea is of course extremely challenging. Elsewhere (including in my book, already referenced) I suggest that it may be possible to begin experimenting with “total nothingness” by looking through the “peep holes” in the vacuum that are available when antiparticles appear “on this side of reality”. The ongoing experiments at the Hadron facility to create “anti-hydrogen atoms” (each an anti-proton surrounded by a positron) are especially interesting, since they may provide opportunities to “look” for longer durations through such “holes” in space, into “total nothingness”.

In any event, though, and as I point out in my book, no “force” would be needed “to have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before.” If “total nothingness” does “fluctuate” (e.g., as described using quantum mechanics), then any symmetry-breaking fluctuation in the “total void” could have led to the “runaway explosion” that Hawking describes in his book. In his most recent seminar (given at Berkeley, a video of which is available on the internet), in his response to the last question he was asked, Hawking stated (close to): “I think I now can show how the universe created itself from nothing.” When (or if) he does publish his result, I expect that he’ll use quantum mechanics – but then, it’s quite bold to assume that “total nothingness” would satisfy the “laws” of quantum mechanics.

In sum, then, much is unknown – but no progress toward understanding is made by promoting the untestable “god hypothesis”. It’s a “show-stopper” – in that it stops people from thinking and from experimenting.

This has been an interesting read. I would like to add two points for a little clarification. The first point is directed at both posters:

Point 1

Why did you both concede to an explosion? One of the biggest misconceptions to the theory is that the big bang refers to the expansion with no actual "Bang"?

Point 2

In the years following this hypothesis, scientific findings followed one another, all confirming the Big Bang. In 1965, two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson chanced upon a form of radiation hitherto unnoticed. Called "cosmic background radiation",

Corect, they did indeed accidently discover cosmic background radiation.

it was unlike anything coming from anywhere else in the universe for it was extraordinarily uniform.

I wonder what is implied with extraordinarily uniform? For instance, NASA's WMAP satellite has made the most detailed map of the cosmic background radiation in which everyone did expect it to be "uniformal" when in reality it was found not to be. Further, it located a giant void. 5% of the universe is filled with galaxy clusters with the rest being mysterious voids.

Finding a void 900 million light years across cannot be explained within standard cosmology.

Perhaps, as recently suggested these voids are other universes which would imply they have a vacuum and push onto our universe becoming a repulsive force as the universe is squeezed. If this was correct then a prediction was made several years ago that a void would need to be in the size of 500 million light years across. Hence why the scientific community was shocked that a void of 900 million has been located.

If other universes are indeed pushing on the universe, then it is predicted that you would need at minimum two giant voids. Even better, they are now pointing to a predicted area to find this void, of which the data will be available within 12 months time.

Science is currently working on an idea dubbed "The smoking gun". More of a prediction, In standard cosmology the tempurature variation of the cosmic background radiation should exactly match the distribution of matter (the uniformal arrangement of the afterglow). The prediction of the smoking gun is that this will not be the case, and it will be much less than 100%.

Here, we have two predictions both of which are available in about 12 months (when the european Planck microwave background probe is launched).

A third prediction is also being made when the very large particle accelerator in Switzerland comes online. The prediction is that according to current inflation theory (big bang) supersymmetry particles (responsible as the energy that drives inflation) will NOT be found.............

I find these 3 predictions that challenge the big bang theory far more promising that simply accepting the big bang theory as is, and proclaiming we know it all and god must have done it.

root:

Thank you for your post.

With respect to your Point 1 (“directed at both posters”), I’m sorry but I don’t understand: of course I didn’t mean to suggest that there was a “bang”; I would use the colloquial “Big Bang” (or as I put it, “runaway explosion”) as a euphemism for “expansion”. Do you mean that such is what should be done -- or am I still missing your point?

Although your Point 2 wasn’t directed at my post, I’d like to add some comments and questions. I’ll preface them with the admission that I’ve been working so hard for the past decade on my book (already referenced), in which I try to show kids that “Belief in god is bad science and even worse policy”, that I’ve fallen a decade behind new findings in physics.

1. I hadn’t heard the suggestion about the “voids”; the last I had heard about was “dark matter” and “dark energy” – which greatly perplexed me (and still does). But with respect to the suggestion that the “voids are other universes”, my immediate reaction is: “Why would other verses be populating our same dimensions?!” Any suggestions? As for the prediction that there would be a minimum of two giant voids, if you have a reference for that, I’d be glad to learn about it.

2. With respect to the “smoking gun” prediction, please explain: if the temperature variation of the CBR doesn’t match the current distribution of matter, then what idea will that support? That the voids are other verses?

3. Can you briefly explain to a novice (such as I) the reason for the third prediction (or provide a reference for it)? I was under the impression that cosmologists such as Guth were reasonably satisfied with string theory. Were some major objections raised (besides lack of predictions)?

Some scientists like the British materialist physicist H. P. Lipson confess that they have to accept the Big Bang theory whether they want it or not:

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?... I think, however, that we must...admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

Erm... isn't Lipson talking about the origin of life here and not the Big Bang theory?

Trumble:

Good point... and also: I've just finished spending some time tracking down this guy H.P. Lipson and where his comment appeared. Apparently he's an "intelligent designer" and his comment is contained in Physics Bulletin, vol 138, 1980, p. 138. I'm not sure which "Physics Bulletin" this is, but when I used to publish, the Physics Bulletin contained just the abstracts of papers presented (or to be presented) at conferences. It wasn't a peer reviewed journal. Further, although I'm not sure, it appears that the first post in this thread was generated by "Harun Yahya" -- who (how shall I say it?) would profit substantially from taking and passing at least one course in science.

format_quote Originally Posted by zoro

root:

Thank you for your post.

With respect to your Point 1 (“directed at both posters”), I’m sorry but I don’t understand: of course I didn’t mean to suggest that there was a “bang”; I would use the colloquial “Big Bang” (or as I put it, “runaway explosion”) as a euphemism for “expansion”. Do you mean that such is what should be done -- or am I still missing your point?)

That's fine, I was emphasising the fact a bang never actually occured which you agree.

Although your Point 2 wasn’t directed at my post, I’d like to add some comments and questions. I’ll preface them with the admission that I’ve been working so hard for the past decade on my book (already referenced), in which I try to show kids that “Belief in god is bad science and even worse policy”, that I’ve fallen a decade behind new findings in physics.

I would certainly agree in respect to belief in god being bad science.

1. I hadn’t heard the suggestion about the “voids”; the last I had heard about was “dark matter” and “dark energy” which greatly perplexed me (and still does). –

The news of the void, broke for me via the bbc news website dated 24th August 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6962185.stm

Here is the actual image:

But with respect to the suggestion that the “voids are other universes”, my immediate reaction is: “Why would other verses be populating our same dimensions?!” Any suggestions?

Something to do with relativity, "vacuums" of nieghbouring patches squeezing our universe would create a repulsive gravity and make it much harder for galaxies to form in those regions. On the scale of our universe such repulsive gravity to drive expansion would need to be on the same scale as what has been observerd?

As for the prediction that there would be a minimum of two giant voids, if you have a reference for that, I’d be glad to learn about it.

I am sorry, but currently I don't have a reference. However, the said prediction is being made by Mersini-Houghton and Holton (University of South Carolina) with Tomo Takahashi of Saga, (University of Japan).

2. With respect to the “smoking gun” prediction, please explain: if the temperature variation of the CBR doesn’t match the current distribution of matter, then what idea will that support?

That the voids are exerting a repulsive gravity that is driving the expansion that we observe?

That the voids are other verses?

They might well be, if they are vacuums this could be the first evidence of other universes.

3. Can you briefly explain to a novice (such as I) the reason for the third prediction (or provide a reference for it)?

I am no authority on the matter, I am merely an enthusiast for scientific discovery. However, the reason for the third prediction is thus:

Many particle physicists believe that the LHC will uncover experimental evidence for supersymmetry, a popular theory that posits that every particle has a heavier superpartner. No current particle accelerator has enough energy to create supersymmetric particles but physicists believe that the LHC will produce fireballs with sufficient energy to recreate conditions in the early universe. They hope to test what happened when the universe cooled below a certain tempurature and underwent a phase transition which drives inflation. since the energy had to be sufficient to create our vacuum.

Now Mersini-Houghton and her collueges can make an estimate of the energy dcale of supersymmetry breaking "We find it is about 100,000 times greater than is currently accepted, therefore we predict the LHC will not detect supersymetry".

Source www.newscientist.net (Subscription required)

I was under the impression that cosmologists such as Guth were reasonably satisfied with string theory. Were some major objections raised (besides lack of predictions)?

Not quite sure of any conflict here, since string theory (aka M theory) does not just describe 1 or 2 other universes, each one a quantum vacuum with different physical properties. It describes 10 (to power of) 500.

On a sidenote:

I wonder why muslimbridges are not informing the reader

1. The big bang theory is only a theory and not a fact
2. The big bang theory cannot explain the voids as discussed here.
3. The big bang theory has a few controversies associated with it and readers should if they wish seek an alternative explanation

root:

Thank you for the information and the references, which I’ll pursue.

Something that you might be interested in (if you haven’t already seen it) is the new “Theory of Everything” by Garrett Lisi. An introduction to it and him is at

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...scisurf114.xml

You can download his paper (e.g., in pdf) from

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770 .

You might want to look at his home page and his comments at

http://sifter.org/~aglisi/ and http://fqxi.org/community/index.php .

Although it appears that his paper has not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, a (respectable and respectful) forum discussing his paper – and some of his responses – is at

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=196498 .