Big bang busted?

[KLA2]

Anyone else out there uncomfortable with the Big Bang / dark matter / dark energy theories?

I realize they connect the dots for physics as we would like to theorize it is.

I respect science for seeking rational explanations for observed phenomena, and being willing to change in the face of provable or better information.

But the Big Bang? First there was nothing, and then in an immeasurable instant of time, a universe came to be? Expanding faster than the speed of light?

A mass of matter/energy immeasurable (by me) offset by an equal mass of antimatter/dark matter/dark energy, so far undetectable?

Continuing to expand when it should contract, and so many other issues.

Sorry, folks, but this has always felt to me like science running back to momma, religion.

Did God say, “Let there be light?” I doubt it, because before that, who said, “Let there be God?”

I know that some science based boards would scorn my question and members with PhD’s in astrophysics would post pages of equations to support the theories, but still.

Just like God creating a flat earth, and everything on it, these theories seem like a best guess to explain observed phenomenon, but not necessarily the truth.

Every time I watch a TV show on these issues (like I just did), I feel uncomfortable. It never passes my “sniff test.”

Sometimes, I think science should say simply, “We do not know. We cannot fully explain. But, we are still investigating.”

hippietrex, you care to reply?

[Мастер]

Anyone else out there uncomfortable with the Big Bang / dark matter / dark energy theories?

I think an honest account of the big bang is, based on what we observe and how we know the universe operates, it was once really really small, really really hot, and expanding very rapidly. Extrapolate the equations governing physics back further suggests that a fraction of a second before, it had a size of zero, but we know that the equations governing physics as we know it don't work under these conditions. The "big bang" is what would have happened if these equations did work; since they don't, we don't really know what happened. Maybe we will figure it out sometime.

From earlier training and a career in what may seem like a completely unrelated field, I do have something of a feel for what it's like trying to figure out what is happening in a realm in which you can't run a controlled experiment. It's tricky, our conclusions are often very tentative, and change in light of new evidence. You just have to do the best you can with what you've got :)

Sometimes, I think science should say simply, “We do not know. We cannot fully explain. But, we are still investigating.”

I think most real scientists will qualify their ideas about such things as tentative. Simplified or popular accounts sometimes overstate the level of certainty we have. But I think it's OK to say, "We don't really know, we are stil investigating, here's the best we have so far, and here are the unresolved problems with what we have come up with" :P

[Enzo]

My COMPLETELY LAYMAN thoughts on the big bang and dark matter are along these lines...

They can determine from measuring motions of things like galaxies that they ACT like there is some unseen mass. They posit "dark matter" as an explanation. I would say that the galaxies act like a mass was operating in them, but it doesn't have to be little undetectable particles.

MY visualization is akin to the 'brane thing. I imagine for a moment flatland, a two-dimensional universe. Within that plane, physics works as we'd expect. Now further imagine we add a large ball of lead or some other large mass, and hold it a fraction of a millimeter from the 2-D surface. To the flatlanders, it would be totally undetectable. But this mass would affect the objects in flatland. I have it centered on the middle of flatland. Objects throughout flatland are attracted to the center point then, gravitationally. The closer they get to the center, the stronger the attraction until they get right under it. At that point, the graviational attraction would be 90 degrees from flatland and thus zero there - to them. Oh there'd be a curve to it. Most places the vector angle to the mass would be close enough to zero as not to matter. AS we got close enough, at a certain angle attraction would peak, then fall off to zero. What I call a volcano curve on the graph.

My point is not that this is actually what happens, but it fits within multidimensional systems, and more importantly requires no magic parts. It only suggests that unseen masses we SEEM to be seeing the effects of are simply removed in the direction of dimensions beyond the three we normally can detect.

Of course in my thought example, it was a two dimensional world with the hidden mass separate in a third dimension. In our world it would be a mass removed in a fourth dimension, separate from our normal three.

SO I have no trouble with dark matter. I believe entirely when they say the starts in the galaxies couldn;t move the way they do with only the star mass that is visible to us. And if something along the lines of my hypothesis were the case, then we will never "detect" dark matter, we will only be able to measure its effect.

That doesn't mean we can't gather evidence to support or refute such an idea.

I have talked to others about the big bang, and a common question is "if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?" They don't get that it is our universe expanding, not just a fence moving outwards in the already existent meadow.

I am OK with the big bang. I expect the theory will be adjusted as more is learned. That's OK. If we waited untilk every question was answered and no doubt remained on anything, then nothing would ever be done.

Sometimes, I think science should say simply, “We do not know. We cannot fully explain. But, we are still investigating.”

KLA2, they Do say that. They say that ALL the time. But that doesn't require them to keep quiet and never discuss what they are thinking. No scientist says that the big bang and dark matter theories are absolute and unquestioned. But those things are the working theories they are striving to either bolster or find the faults in. When scientists make a claim, the firtst thing that happens is the rest of the scientific community tries to duplicate their results and find any faults.

[KLA2]

Mactep,

and Enzo

I am humbled in your presence.

Hate to admit that, because I am an arrogant man.

Damn good replies.

[Мастер]

Oh, I'm not trying to humble anyone now. How may I exalt you?

[tubeswell]

My fraction of a penny's worth on this.

Many times over and over people theorise about things they cannot understand. Big bang is another such riddle. Here is a theory (of mine) that I have cobbled together from thinking about nothingness.

Perhaps, once-upon-a-time before the big bang there was some relatively stable nothingness that by mere virtue of its stability somehow gradually or instantaneously became unstable the same way that when you think things couldn't be going more smoothly they suddenly change. Presto! things changed! What could be more obvious?!

My apologies to those who are smarter or who can see that my tin-pot idea reflects, in some infantile manner, something that someone has already thought of before. Chances are that this is not a new idea (and that I am infantile).

[hippietrekx]

hippietrex, you care to reply?

Ah. Well, I'm no cosmologist, but there are certainly some missing pieces to the big bang theory.

The big issue with astrophysics is that we understand the big ideas, but we don't know many details! Even modeling a collapsing cloud of gas is freaking hard. Details, oh details.

So, yeah this whole hunk of astro is sketchy, but it explains the big concepts pretty well (really well), and we're just looking for details. Details like direct observations of dark matter/dark energy/neutrinos from behind the visible edge of the universe.

Yeah. So. We know we have problems, but without problems, how the hell do we stay employed?

--Dom

[Superluminal]

So, cosmology is a conspiracy to keep cosmologist employeed?

[Мастер]

So, cosmology is a conspiracy to keep cosmologist employeed?

Yep. They've actually figured it all out 40 years ago, but it's been suppressed.

[hippietrekx]

So, cosmology is a conspiracy to keep cosmologist employeed?

Yep. They've actually figured it all out 40 years ago, but it's been suppressed.

Well, actually Fritz Zwicky discovered the dark matter part in the 20's, and so did Einstein about dark energy/expansion of the universe.

90 years.

--Dom

[Arneb]

Those smart bastards.

[Enzo]

I tried learning cosmology, but I kept using too much mascara. And they wouldn;t let me take a... make up test.....

[St. Jimmy]

*facepalm*