Despite popular conception, the BBT says nothing about t=0. The BBT goes back to very small amounts of time, but t=0 is a singularity and by definition unknowable, at least given current physics.
And in one sense you’re right, the universe was denser in the past, not smaller. That’s exactly what the BBT says, though. A lot of people get that wrong too.
If it turns out the “brane theory” is true, it won’t replace the BBT, the BBT will simply incorporate it into itself. There’s nothing in the current BBT that contradicts it, nothing would have to be rewritten.
Ah, but the BBT as currently formulated does make predictions. Predictions that have been validated (like the CMB and light-nuclide ratios), and predictions that have not yet been validated (like the inflationary epoch).
As usual, Talk Origins has a pretty good discussion and explanation.
The enlightenment occurs, and the Scientific method is discovered. Along with that, an effort to apply the scientific method to the universe occurs, in conjunction with a growing humanist movement that seeks to apply standards beyond “a wizard did it” to creation, life, physics, biology, etc.
Early theories are generated, and then as the scientific method and empirical evidence are applied, those models are discarded and new ones created.
The current model of creation, the Big Bang theory, seems to be holding up pretty well, and in fact the more we learn and discover, the better it holds up (in large part. small bits and pieces are modified to fit the data, which is normal for science).
Not sure where your problem lies with this though. At the basic level, it’s pretty simple.
Well yeah but that was prior to Hubble’s work on galactic red shifts was published. After which the evidence led Einstein to recant his support of a static universe.
The current theories based on a century of research, experimentation, and observation are “absurd” and “suspect”? Wow, man, that’s a bold statement indeed!
I presume you have completed your research and are about to publish your meticulous paper which illustrates in detail what the errors are in previous research? You certainly can’t have formed such an opinion without being intimately familiar with the theories you’re challenging.
I’m excited to see it! Who ever would have thought that such a momentous counter-theory which overturns a century of research and observation would be presented here on the SDMB of all places! The peer review process here probably won’t be quite as rigourous as you’re used to, so I must apologise in advance for that.
If the idea of a finite universe just suddenly popping into existence for no reason seems absurd, why doesn’t an infinite universe that has always existed not seem absurd? How can something always have existed? If it’s always existed, where did it come from?
See, the classic question, “Why is there something instead of nothing” isn’t answered by a steady-state eternally existing infinte universe any better than it is by the big bang. The answer to the question is “we don’t know”. The big bang theory implies that we may never know, because the answers to what caused the big bang aren’t contained in our universe.
If the answers to what caused the Big Bang aren’t contained in Our Universe, then our concept of ‘infinite’ is too small. If Our Universe sprang into being from Elsewhere, then our universe IS finite compared to the Elsewhere it may have originated from.
We can only deal with the facts we can measure and refine theory as we learn more. The actual scope of the answer may, probably will, forever be beyond our skills.
The worm wishes to know the meaning, and origin of dirt, and why it seems endless. But there are things much smaller and much larger going on that the worm can never be aware of.
So arrogant of me to ask questions about and express my doubt over something that is so ubiquitously presented as basic truth and so little understood by most who accept it.
To those who actually gave some resources or descriptions and reasons why they think the BBT is valid thank you. I will continue to investigate and see what I can come to understand about the theories and cosmology generally.
I’d love to hear more about the subject. I make no assumptions only have feelings one way or another.
There’s no evidence to suggest that there was an “elsewhere” (although there are various theories of multiple universes, they’re little more than speculation). Concepts like “where” and “when” are both elements that make up timespace, which is our universe. “Elsewhere” has no meaning outside timespace; just like “before the Big Bang” has no meaning.
Also, something isn’t infinite or finite “compared to” something. Something is either infinite or it is not.
The problem is you’re trying to use your intuition to make sense of this stuff. That doesn’t work; the universe is pretty unintuitive in a lot of ways (especially when we try to imagine infinity; and relativity is totally unintuitive). Using your intuition you’re gonna come up with conclusions that do not match actual observation.
Nothing wrong with asking questions. It was your statement that scientific consensus was not only “absurd” but “suspect” which I objected to.
You could have said “I don’t understand this, and I found this web page which says it contradicts it. Could you guys help me understand what I’m looking at here?”
But you didn’t; you told us that all the research, experimentation and observation over the last century was absurd and suspect. And you were called on it.
Fortunately for us all, the theory says nothing of the sort.
You may have heard somewhere that there is a maximum speed limit in the universe (the speed of light); and that a light-year is the distance light travels in one year; and furthermore that we observe things using light.
Therefore, given the age of the universe being 15 billion years old (give or take), we can only see things up to 15 billion light years away from us, because the light from anything further away hasn’t had time to reach us yet given the age of the universe.
This does not mean it’s not there. Just that we can only see that far.
Ya this was my impression, that we can’t see beyond a certain point in the universe because of the time it takes light to travel and degradation of light from obstructions along the way. If there is a big bang event that occurred I would get the feeling that it is limited in scope and that there are instead infinite big bangs going on beyond observable space. Got to go eat some turkey though so I’ll check this later tonight and see if I have time to do some more reading on it.
No. The big bang was a singular event that created everything in the universe, even the stuff that’s too far enough for us to see.
It sounds like you’re thinking of the big bang as a sort of explosion – there was a bang, and a bunch of stars and galaxies go sailing out into the void. This is how the big bang is often depicted in pop culture, so it’s a common misconception, but it’s totally wrong.
The big bang was the moment that space itself came into existence. All space, everywhere. At that moment space was already infinite in extent (or perhaps just very, very large). It was also filled with a very hot, very dense soup of fundamental particles. As space expanded, it necessarily became cooler and less dense. Eventually things became cool and spread out enough for light to shine through the fog.
It possible that universes besides our own might exist. And those universes would have been created by their own big bangs. But if they do exist they’re not merely “out beyond observable space”. They exist in some completely seperate dimension of reality that has not connection to our reality at all.
Oh for fuck’s sakes we’re getting the “I’m just asking questions.” shtick. :rolleyes:
That’s right pal, the cosmological establishment is hiding the truth from you like some sort of Illuminati priesthood. How brave of you to confront it.