If I’ve understood it correctly, in this link (near or at the bottom of the page), an assertion is made that the “Big Bang” was ‘merely’ a bang of baryonic matter and light energy, i.e. a minority (~4%) of the Universe. It goes on to say (again with the caveat that I may well have misunderstood) that this baryonic-light energy “Big Bang” occurred in a Universe that ‘already’ contained dark matter and dark energy.
Is such a model being studied by reputable cosmologists?
Thanks!
Not to my knowledge. I’m not a professional cosmologist, but my husband is.
I’d believe such a re-thinking of the Big Bang when I saw it in a reputable astronomy journal or a decent popular-science magazine. Not when I saw it in a blog belonging to someone who seems to think that Masoud Ali-Mohammadi was killed because of his interest in dark energy.
This one had me extra-skeptical because it matches so well with a common misconception about the Big Bang. We see this misconception here sometimes. A lot of people think that the Big Bang was an explosion of stuff into space that was already there, rather than the creation of all of space and time. People who ask questions like “where in the Universe did the Big Bang happen?” or “what happened before the Big Bang?” generally have this idea somewhere in their mind.
That blog is called Aaron’s Reality. So why does his physics have to match ours?
Some smart guy named Edwin Hubble figured out that not only is everything expanding away from everything else, but it’s not doing it at a constant rate. Things farther away from us are moving faster away from us. If the universe was just expanding into an already existing space this wouldn’t be happening. The rate would be constant, not proportional. The implication of this is that space itself is expanding.
The constant of proportionality that describes this expansion is called, not surprisingly, the Hubble Constant. Hubble also got a spiffy space telescope named after him, which is pretty darn good in astronomy circles.
Hubble’s research pretty much squished all of the other ideas about the nature of the universe, so stuff expanding into an existing universe filled with dark matter (or anything else) hasn’t been seriously considered since then.
If your universe isn’t expanding, you need to come up with some other spiffy explanation for v=HoD (Ho is the Hubble Constant). The information in your link isn’t very detailed (not surprisingly) but based on what is given, I would say that this dark matter theory has a slight problem with the fact that it doesn’t jive with known observations.
You don’t even need to be a cosmologist to see why this theory is bunk. All you need is a basic understanding of the Hubble’s Constant, which apparently the guy who wrote that theory seems to lack.
Aaron’s reality indeed. It’s certainly not our reality.
This guy uses the word aether way too much.
No. Almost everything at that link is complete crackpot bullshit.
Thank you, all!
I just wanted to be sure that I hadn’t missed what might have been the most important cosmologic development in years.
(Engineer: I should have been able to figure that out on my own. Where’s that embarrassed smiley when you need it?)
One example, talking about the spiral object seen in the sky in Norway last month:
He just knows that it was an “electric event” (whatever that is), not a missile. This after the Russian Defense Ministry said they had problems with a missile test in that area.
Any change in the magnetic field will always increase the altitude of any orbit?
Oh, and dark matter doesn’t interact via the electromagnetic force.
This guy is a few quarks short of a baryon.
Very weird page in that link. Aaron doesn’t believe that the spiral over Norway is a missile fail, but some weird electromagnetic event.
I think that Aaron has rejected our reality and substituted his own.
Well, to be fair, almost everything observed by humans is ultimately an electromagnetic event of some sort or another.
Speak for yourself. I can directly sense the weak nuclear force with my pineal gland.
Anne Neville:
Well, that question isn’t entirely nonsense, there has to be a point in the universe where all the matter is expanding away from.
Nope, the Big Bang happened everywhere at once.
As Anne Neville says, thinking that the Big Bang happened at a particular point in space is a common misconception … .
It’s every point in the universe. Anywhere you go in the universe, you’d see other galaxies expanding away from you according to Hubble’s law.
A common way to show that this needn’t be the case is to use a pen to put a bunch of dots on a balloon. As the balloon inflates, each dot moves away from every other dot. There is no “centre” of expansion. Moreover, the further apart two dots are are, the faster they spread apart as the balloon inflates.
Lawrence Krauss (VIDEO) has a good explanation of this at 8:30 - 9:00 into the video. Though I would recommend watching the whole hour and four minutes if you have the time.
My grandmother used to say: a few wheelbarrows short of a spreader load.
I think that is a better description of the quality of his reality.
I’ve always liked, “a few elements short of a periodic table.”
The guy whose page is linked in the OP is clearly a nutcase. (He has an article there “disproving” the existence of gravity, and one of the arguments is the fact that helium balloons float!)
However, it may still be the case that the big bang only accounts for part of the universe. Here are some blog posts explaining it, from a real theoretical astrophysicist:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/01/the_greatest_story_ever_told_-.php
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/01/q_a_did_inflation_happen_befor.php
(Not at all the theory in the OP link. Respectable astrophysics, but still pretty wild.)