Big Bang Theory

scrabus44

21st July 2011 - 11:58 PM

What I am about to suggest may sound like pseudo-science or a crackpot theory but is based on sound reasoning and over ten years of study and research. The Big Bang Theory is one of what I call Compound Hypotheses. In other words, when we can't prove the first theory we add another to make the original work and continue to do so each time we come across a new problem. I have written a 10 page paper which is too long to submit here so I will give a little more evidence with each new posting. I don't question science's explanation for the origin of the stars and planets or how everything formed from the very basic elements. What I find hard to believe is that everything that exists today was present at the beginning and compressed into something smaller than an atom. I believe that our universe started as a singularity of energy which split and continued to split, not unlike the human egg cell, over billions of years. This would do away with the need to insert an inflationary period, which we can't prove. We know that all of space is filled with a uniform radiation (cosmic background radiation). The universe is expanding therefore there must be more energy to fill all of space. I believe that this energy is what is causing the universe to expand. The basic theory is that whenever our universe came into existence it started as a singularity which split and multiplied not as a super compressed entity of everything that exists today. I call it Spontaneous Regeneration. I would welcome any comments or arguments and would gladly email the full file to anyone who is interested.

flyingbuttressman

22nd July 2011 - 12:25 AM

You may be a crank, but at least you actually comprehend the theory you are criticizing.

scrabus44

22nd July 2011 - 12:31 AM

Thank you. Another thing to consider is that calculations didn't match observations for the expansion of the universe. The actual motion of stars and galaxies appeared to prove that Newton's laws were wrong. Rather than accept tht alternative we inserted another theory that says 90% of the matter in the universe must be Dark Matter, something we can't see, measure or even detect.

flyingbuttressman

22nd July 2011 - 12:58 AM

QUOTE (scrabus44+Jul 21 2011, 08:31 PM)

Rather than accept tht alternative we inserted another theory that says 90% of the matter in the universe must be Dark Matter, something we can't see, measure or even detect.

Dark matter isn't a product of the big bang theory. Dark matter was hypothesized because the visible mass in galaxies didn't match their rotational velocities, among other things. This article explains why we hypothesize dark matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#G...rotation_curves

scrabus44

22nd July 2011 - 01:20 AM

Isn't it a theoretical part of the inflationary theory which is part of the big bang theory?

AlexG

22nd July 2011 - 01:35 AM

QUOTE (scrabus44+Jul 21 2011, 08:20 PM)

Isn't it a theoretical part of the inflationary theory which is part of the big bang theory?

No, dark matter does not appear in Inflation theory in any form.

scrabus44

22nd July 2011 - 01:53 AM

What I am asking is: Can you accept the possibility that whatever popped into existence, either from another universe or dimension, when OUR universe was created was a singularity which split and re-doubled? From this hydrogen and the other elements were formed along with stars and planets. Why does it necessarily have to be something super heated and compressed. How do we know that the universe cooled to its present temperature? Do we have actual proof that at some time it was super hot other than a theory which says it must have been.

flyingbuttressman

22nd July 2011 - 02:00 AM

QUOTE (scrabus44+Jul 21 2011, 09:53 PM)

What I am asking is: Can you accept the possibility that whatever popped into existence, either from another universe or dimension, when OUR universe was created was a singularity which split and re-doubled? From this hydrogen and the other elements were formed along with stars and planets. Why does it necessarily have to be something super heated and compressed. How do we know that the universe cooled to its present temperature? Do we have actual proof that at some time it was super hot other than a theory which says it must have been.

The cosmic background radiation is in the microwave band, but because of the distance we know that it has red-shifted to an extreme degree. The original source would have been emitting gamma radiation, which indicates something extremely hot.

khalid masood

25th July 2011 - 06:39 AM

If all cosmologists say a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing!!!

scrabus44

25th July 2011 - 06:09 PM

If it seems hard to grasp that a single entity of energy could split and multiply into all that exists in the universe today after billions of years, consider this; if you start with a penny today and double it tomorrow and continued to double your money each day you would have over 134 million pennies or 1.34 million dollars on the 28th day. The human egg cell splits and after just 47 sets of doublings we have over 100 trillion cells in our bodies as a baby.

scrabus44

25th July 2011 - 06:12 PM

If it seems hard to grasp that a single entity of energy could split and multiply into all that exists in the universe today after billions of years, consider this; if you start with a penny today and double it tomorrow and continued to double your money each day you would have over 134 million pennies or 1.34 million dollars on the 28th day. The human egg cell splits and after just 47 sets of doublings we have over 100 trillion cells in our bodies as a baby.

Sithdarth

25th July 2011 - 06:42 PM

QUOTE

You may be a crank, but at least you actually comprehend the theory you are criticizing.

Not as such actually. For example,

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

You may be a crank, but at least you actually comprehend the theory you are criticizing.

Not as such actually. For example,

What I find hard to believe is that everything that exists today was present at the beginning and compressed into something smaller than an atom.

Is not a part of the Big Band Theory. The Big Bang theory itself posits a singularity of energy that was equal to all the energy (both mass and otherwise) we have today. It doesn't posit that "everything we have today was compressed into something smaller than an atom" at all. It posits that the universe started as a very small point of very high energy. Pretty much exactly the purposed starting condition of this supposed criticism.

To follow that:

QUOTE

I believe that our universe started as a singularity of energy which split and continued to split, not unlike the human egg cell, over billions of years.

We discussed the energy singularity bit before what's wrong here is that the reason the Big Bang is said to have taken such a short time is because the Universe is so homogenous. The size was limited by the speed of light. So in order to put this forward as an explanation one needs to explain how to break the light speed limit to produce the Universe we see today.

Continuing on:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I believe that our universe started as a singularity of energy which split and continued to split, not unlike the human egg cell, over billions of years.

We discussed the energy singularity bit before what's wrong here is that the reason the Big Bang is said to have taken such a short time is because the Universe is so homogenous. The size was limited by the speed of light. So in order to put this forward as an explanation one needs to explain how to break the light speed limit to produce the Universe we see today.

Continuing on:
This would do away with the need to insert an inflationary period, which we can't prove.

It really wouldn't as per the above because it in no way addresses why inflation was posited in the first place.

Additionally,

QUOTE

The universe is expanding therefore there must be more energy to fill all of space.

This is obviously not a correct conclusion. There could or could not be more energy. For example, if I breathe a lung full of air into a balloon at ground level it will have a certain size. If I then take that balloon to a few thousand feet the size of the balloon will increase without the need to put any more air into the balloon. The Universe can expand and remain full of the same amount of energy simply by allowing the energy density to decrease.

Further,

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The universe is expanding therefore there must be more energy to fill all of space.

This is obviously not a correct conclusion. There could or could not be more energy. For example, if I breathe a lung full of air into a balloon at ground level it will have a certain size. If I then take that balloon to a few thousand feet the size of the balloon will increase without the need to put any more air into the balloon. The Universe can expand and remain full of the same amount of energy simply by allowing the energy density to decrease.

Further,
I believe that this energy is what is causing the universe to expand.

This is an example of circular reasoning. Also, in order to postulate this one needs to explain how this doesn't violate conservation laws and the laws of thermodynamics. (The Big Bang theory does address these points.)

As you can see some major flaws in the understanding of the theory and the basic premise of what makes a theory. Now on to other things:

QUOTE

The actual motion of stars and galaxies appeared to prove that Newton's laws were wrong. Rather than accept tht alternative we inserted another theory that says 90% of the matter in the universe must be Dark Matter, something we can't see, measure or even detect.

You're about a decade behind current science. We've got Dark Energy now and we've seen the gravitational lensing caused by Dark Matter. We know that it is out there because we can detect and measure its gravitational effect on light under the right circumstances.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The actual motion of stars and galaxies appeared to prove that Newton's laws were wrong. Rather than accept tht alternative we inserted another theory that says 90% of the matter in the universe must be Dark Matter, something we can't see, measure or even detect.

You're about a decade behind current science. We've got Dark Energy now and we've seen the gravitational lensing caused by Dark Matter. We know that it is out there because we can detect and measure its gravitational effect on light under the right circumstances.

Why does it necessarily have to be something super heated and compressed.

You once again seem to think that the Big Bang theory posits that the originating singularity was matter. It does not. As far as being hot goes things that are pure energy have a temperature just like other things do. To put it more precisely as the Universe evolved into a state where matter could come into existence the energy density was such that said matter was very high temperature. This we can clearly see from the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Might I suggest you find a new hobby? Barring that if you want to theorize about physics then go get an actual physics degree. In the process, assuming you pass, you will learn all about these theories and why you are wrong about what they say.

flyingbuttressman

25th July 2011 - 06:46 PM

QUOTE (Sithdarth+Jul 25 2011, 02:42 PM)

Not as such actually. For example,

Yeah, kinda got that by his second post.

Good point about the singularity thing though, thanks!

scrabus44

25th July 2011 - 07:24 PM

thanks to all who replied, especially sithdarth. This is why I am an ameteur and needed help finding the right answers. I have read several books including "Fabric of the Cosmos" and "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene but advanced physics is over my head. I am full of wonder and in awe of all of you who have pursued a higher education in the subject matter. Thanks again for helping me better understand. Please do not laugh at people like me. My theory seemed right to me only because I did not have all the facts. Keep an open mind, someday some crackpot may actually have it right. It's happened before. By the way, I am 67 years old and only began reading on the subject in my retirement.

brucep

25th July 2011 - 07:51 PM

QUOTE (scrabus44+Jul 25 2011, 07:24 PM)

thanks to all who replied, especially sithdarth. This is why I am an ameteur and needed help finding the right answers. I have read several books including "Fabric of the Cosmos" and "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene but advanced physics is over my head. I am full of wonder and in awe of all of you who have pursued a higher education in the subject matter. Thanks again for helping me better understand. Please do not laugh at people like me. My theory seemed right to me only because I did not have all the facts. Keep an open mind, someday some crackpot may actually have it right. It's happened before. By the way, I am 67 years old and only began reading on the subject in my retirement.

I'll post these for you to read.

Alan Guth's Inflation has solid empirical confirmation for predictions derived from the model. The first link he gives a good description for laypeople.

http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatm...2_cosmology.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178

This is the experiment where most the empirical support is derived from. You can link to all the scientific literature associated with the WMAP experiment. There's also a nice experiment summary for those who don't want to read the scientific papers.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

flyingbuttressman

25th July 2011 - 07:53 PM

QUOTE (scrabus44+Jul 25 2011, 03:24 PM)

Keep an open mind, someday some crackpot may actually have it right. It's happened before.

When? Where?

brucep

26th July 2011 - 01:06 AM

QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 22 2011, 01:35 AM)

No, dark matter does not appear in Inflation theory in any form.

Read the WMAP results relative to the predictions of Guth's inflation model. For the predicted spatial geometry, flat, all the dark components were inferred.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.