Jump to content

What is the mechanism for the BIG BANG ?


Recommended Posts

Since I understand that there is a very high standard on this forum which requires a mechanism for every theory, and not just an ideea, then I think you too are required to respect your own standards and give a mechanism for the theories that you support. So what is the mechanism that you propose for the Big-Bang ? 

Edited by Marius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mechanism can only be proposed once you have a theory. At least in physics and chemistry. I've told you in another thread, but you didn't answer.

Newton's laws of motion don't come from a mechanism

Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism don't come from a mechanism

Einstein's equations of gravity don't come from a mechanism

And so on.

In the case of cosmology, the big bang is an inevitable consequence of Einstein's equations plus reasonable --and observationally sound-- cosmological hypotheses (cosmological principle, Hubble's law...). When extrapolated backwards in time, an expanding universe leads to a time in the remote past when everything was much, much closer together. There's your bang. Seems to make sense, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Marius said:

Since I understand that there is a very high standard on this forum which requires a mechanism for every theory, and not just an ideea, then I think you too are required to respect your own standards and give a mechanism for the theories that you support. So what is the mechanism that you propose for the Big-Bang ? 

It has already been explained to you that other aspects of cosmology like universal expansion over large scales, gravity, etc are all overwhelmingly supported scientific theories. Yet we do not understand the mechanism that drives them. Are you denying gravity exists because we are unable to ascribe a mechanism? Or are you ladened down with so much baggage and agenda, that you are sticking your fingers in your ears. That's what some call trolling.

 

Evidence for the BB:

(1)The observed expansion. (2) The relic left over heat known as the CMBR (3) The abundence of the lighter elements (4) Galactic distribution.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

Quote

A

 mechanism can only be proposed once you have a theory. At least in physics and chemistry. I've told you in another thread, but you didn't answer.

 

I agree. But that doesnt adress my point. You ask me to give a mechanism for the tired light theory, but on the other hand you don't give any mechanism for your space expansion/big-bang theory. Or you simply say its caused by a mysterious dark energy and that's it.

 

Quote

 

 

 
In the case of cosmology, the big bang is an inevitable consequence of Einstein's equations

No it is not ! Because Einstein's equations innitially predicted a contracting universe. Only after Hubble saw the redlight he changed the prediction. Which was a postdiction. And again this doesnt adress my point !

 

 

 
plus reasonable --and observationally sound-- cosmological hypotheses (cosmological principle, Hubble's law...).

Those are all based on ASSUMPTIONS. Hubbles law is based on the assumption that space expands. This is not proven by anything, it is taken for granted, and after more than 100 years there is still no mechanism to explain how exactly this space expansion works.   

 

 
When extrapolated backwards in time, an expanding universe leads to a time in the remote past when everything was much, much closer together. There's your bang.

Thats your ideea of a bang. Based on the assumption that space expands. Which is based on Einsteins relativity, which predicted the universe should contract. Contraction is not expansion, it is the exact opposite.

And I didnt ask how did you arrive at the IDEEA of your big bang, but what is the mechanism for the big-bang. What caused the bang ?

 

 
Seems to make sense, doesn't it?

No. It doesnt many any sense. Because Einstein's equations don't make any sense. Even for him. At first when he solved his equations he came to the result that the universe should contract because of gravity. Then he added a cosmological constant to make it static. And then, after Hubble saw the redlight, he removed the constant and somehow the universe was expanding ! That is serious pseudo-science and post-diction.


 

And that is not what I asked on this and the other thread. I asked to give a mechanism for the Big Bang and the space expansion.

If you dont have a mechanism for space expansion, but take this space expansion for granted, then why do you require me to have a mechanism for tired light ? Why can't I just take this tired light for granted, like you take space expansion for granted, without having to explain it ? Or say that a dark something is causing the light to loose energy and drop in frequency, like you say that a dark energy causes space itself to expand ?

 

Edited by Marius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Marius said:

No it is not ! Because Einstein's equations innitially predicted a contracting universe. Only after Hubble saw the redlight he changed the prediction. Which was a postdiction. And again this doesnt adress my point !

Wrong again!! Eisnteins equations predicted a dynamic universe. But the beliefs of the day were that the universe was static. Einstein added the CC to maintain that static.This was, as Einstein claimed, his biggest blunder, when Hubble discovered the cosmological redshift...he failed to believe the predictions of his own theory. 

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marius said:

Since I understand that there is a very high standard on this forum which requires a mechanism for every theory

You made numerous references to a class of models collectively called tired light, as an alternative to explain cosmological redshift.

The trouble with these models is not so much the exact mechanism, but the fact that none of them actually corresponds to available observational evidence. For example, Zwicky’s original scattering model is immediately falsified by the fact that we...well...don’t observe any scattering (which would visually blur distant images). Others are falsified because they are wavelength-dependent, and thus can’t account for cosmological redshift. I don’t know of a single tired light model that is actually consistent with available data. This is why this line of thinking has been pretty much abandoned by the scientific community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

For example, Zwicky’s original scattering model is immediately falsified by the fact that we...well...don’t observe any scattering (which would visually blur distant images). Others are falsified because they are wavelength-dependent, and thus can’t account for cosmological redshift. I don’t know of a single tired light model that is actually consistent with available data. This is why this line of thinking has been pretty much abandoned by the scientific community.

He has already had that explained to him by a couple of others Marcus. 🙄

10 minutes ago, Marius said:

 Or say that a dark something is causing the light to loose energy and drop in frequency, like you say that a dark energy causes space itself to expand ?

No, sorry, again wrong. DE is the entitiy/unknown reason to explain the acceleration in the expansion rate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Marius said:

And that is not what I asked on this and the other thread. I asked to give a mechanism for the Big Bang and the space expansion.

In the absence of a self-consistent model of quantum gravity, we do not yet know the underlying mechanism that makes gravity work the way it does. General Relativity is an effective description of the large-scale dynamics of gravity, and as such it is very successful; but it has nothing to say about the underlying nature of spacetime. That is outside its domain.

For the same reason we also don’t know yet what exactly went on prior to about 10^-35s after the BB. This, however, does not cast doubt on the fact that the BB happened, because this is an inference based on extrapolation from current observational data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Marius said:

No. It doesnt many any sense. Because Einstein's equations don't make any sense. 

You do understand that GR was formulated in 1916 and validated in 1919, and that in the intervening 100 years, much more has been discovered and validated re the predictions of GR, that even Einstein wasn't aware of or rejected, (in the case of BH's) The other great prediction of course being gravitational waves.

21 minutes ago, Marius said:

Those are all based on ASSUMPTIONS. Hubbles law is based on the assumption that space expands. This is not proven by anything, it is taken for granted, and after more than 100 years there is still no mechanism to explain how exactly this space expansion works.

No that is false and you are indulging in porky pies and ignorance of current cosmology, amid the obvious confusion you display. The expansion was evidenced by the cosmological redshift. This differs from your invalidated tired light nonsense. Plus of course the expansion goes hand in glove with the BB, as well as GR in general. Those are scientific theories that have stood up to real professioanl scrutiny (unlike your Mickey Mouse objections)  over a period of a 100 years. 

Your other gross error of course is your use of the word "proof" Scientific theories are not proof, but the current best explanations at any particular time, but obviously, do grow in certainty over time. Science accepts that there is much we don't know, rather then erecting the often "god of the gaps"mythical stories.

Seems like our friend in his frustration,  is handing out his down votes! 🤣 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

Quote

It

 has already been explained to you that other aspects of cosmology like universal expansion over large scales, gravity, etc are all overwhelmingly supported scientific theories.

 

Supported by what ?! By mere assumptions such as redshift is caused by space expansion, and by self-contradicting theories which predict contracting, then static, then expanding universes as time goes by ?

 

 

Quote

Yet we do not understand the mechanism that drives them.

 

I dont understand the mechanism that drives tired light either. But I have to explain in front of you, while you dont have to explain anything. 

 

 

Quote

Are you denying gravity exists because we are unable to ascribe a mechanism?

 

No, Einstein ! I am simply asking you to respect your own standards which you impose to others. You asked me to give a mechanism for the tired light (or energy loss of light over vast distance) and closed the thread because I couldn't ! Now I ask you to give a mechanism for space expansion/big bang ! What is it so hard to understand ??

 

 

Quote

Or are you ladened down with so much baggage and

 agenda, that you are sticking your fingers in your ears.

 

You really get it do you ? 

 

 

Quote

Evidence for the BB:

(1)The observed expansion. (2) The relic left over heat known as the CMBR (3) The abundence of the lighter elements (4) Galactic distribution.[/quote]

1) Here we go again. What is observed is REDSHIFT, which you say it's from space expansion. I say its from light exhaustion, or tired light. I dont have a mechanism for this, but neither do you ! So why is your assumption better than mine ?

2) The CMBR is also explained by tired light in a static universe (by energy loss and frequency drop of light below the visible spectrum). As does the whole cosmic background radiation (radio, infrared), from which you cherry pick the micro-wave part that suits your mainstream big-bang agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 
 
Edited by Marius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

Quote

You made numerous references to a class of models collectively called

tired light, as an alternative to explain cosmological redshift.[/quote][/quote]

 

I simply used the formula for light energy (E=hf) and saw that if Energy of the photon drops you automatically get a redshift, as frequency also drops. So the physics is this: Photon travels over millions of light years=>Photon energy drops (for some reason)=>frequency drops=>REDSHIFT.

I am asked to give the EXACT mechanism as to why photon energy drops over vast distances. They, on the other hand, do not give any mechanism for why space expands, which is the premise of their cosmological redshift. They just tell me a story, which involves a mysterious dark energy. Why is their story better than my story ? Tired light is based entirely on the physics/energy of the photon, while their story is based entirely on the physics/energy of the 'space expansion', which is a totally unknown physics.

 

 

For example, Zwicky’s original scattering model is immediately falsified by the fact that we...well...don’t observe any scattering (which would visually blur distant images). Others are falsified because they are wavelength-dependent, and thus can’t account for cosmological redshift. I don’t know of a single tired light model that is actually consistent with available data.

Because they didnt invent Dark Something to make it consistent with data, like they do in other cases with Dark Energy, or Dark Matter. But I invented it, and trust me, it solves the whole problem ! 

 
This is why this line of thinking has been pretty much abandoned by the scientific community.

This is why the scientific community is in a perpetual CRISYS. And will never get out of it because it refuses to see the (tired) LIGHT.

Edited by Marius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marius said:

Because they didnt invent Dark Something to make it consistent with data, like they do in other cases with Dark Energy, or Dark Matter. But I invented it, and trust me, it solves the whole problem ! 

I don’t understand what this is in reference to? The layout of your posts is a mess, and I made no mention of the dark sector anywhere.

1 hour ago, Marius said:

This is why the scientific community is in a perpetual CRISYS. And will never get out of it because it refuses to see the (tired) LIGHT.

As I pointed out to you, the concept was abandoned because it is in direct contradiction to observational evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Marius said:

No, Einstein ! I am simply asking you to respect your own standards which you impose to others. You asked me to give a mechanism for the tired light (or energy loss of light over vast distance) and closed the thread because I couldn't ! Now I ask you to give a mechanism for space expansion/big bang ! What is it so hard to understand ??

!

Moderator Note

As I pointed out before, you were asked for a model, not a mechanism. The mechanism you offered had been falsified.

What is so hard to understand?

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Marius said:

Since I understand that there is a very high standard on this forum which requires a mechanism for every theory, and not just an ideea, then I think you too are required to respect your own standards and give a mechanism for the theories that you support.

As far as I know this forum is focused on mainstream science; forum members may provide arguments backed up by established mainstream theories without providing all the underlaying supporting evidence, observations and mathematics of the mainstream theory. Note that rules does not prevent a member from presenting material that goes against the mainstream and in this case the member has to provide supportive evidence.  

Example: Conservation of momentum may be used in an argument about mechanics without detailed explanation and evidence how and why momentum is conserved in physics. If a member argues in favour for a reactionless drive that breaks the conservation of momentum then the member is free to do so as long as a model and supportive evidence is presented.

Example: Material that was speculative at one time may not be so at a later time. Had I posted an idea about a database structure that allows full trust in the decentralized and distributed public transaction ledger it would probably have been suitable for the speculations section if I posted it in 2001. Today, when blockchain is an established technique, it may be discussed in the mainstream sections. 

Note: I assume discussion is done good faith in the above examples. 

Edited by Ghideon
added a section and final note
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.