The Big Bang Didn't Happen?

[martin-w 3,235]

Spoiler alert... the data from the JWST makes us even more convinced it did! 

There's a lot of nonsense being propagated on the internet at the moment to get clicks on YouTube etc. The claim is that the JWST has provided data that the Big Bang didn't happen.

In this video Anton clears up the confusion.

 

Did James Webb Prove Big Bang Theory Wrong? Here Are The Facts

 

[hs118 707]

great explanation

[overspeed3 410]

I always wondered where and how all the seemingly infinite source of matter originated from in the Big Bang.  I also pondered the actual size of the Big Bang singularity.  But unless cosmologists offer a more plausible theory, I would think the BB still rules for now...

[qqwertz 781]

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

Spoiler alert... the data from the JWST makes us even more convinced it did! 

I always find it funny that people go to such length to disprove the Big Bang. It is much easier to refute: physical cosmology is, strictly speaking, not science. A key principle of science is that it deals with repeatable experiments; since we have only one universe to play with, that's not possible in cosmology. So there you are: the Big Bang is an unscientific speculation 🙂

Of course, that argument ignores the tremendous success that the Big Bang theory has in explaining a lot of observations, all of which are addressed in that video. I personally certainly believe that the Big Bang happened, but one should keep an open mind for alternatives since, strictly speaking, all that success is technically circumstantial evidence. 

[Holdit 551]

Just now, qqwertzde said:

I always find it funny that people go to such length to disprove the Big Bang. It is much easier to refute: physical cosmology is, strictly speaking, not science. A key principle of science is that it deals with repeatable experiments; since we have only one universe to play with, that's not possible in cosmology. So there you are: the Big Bang is an unscientific speculation 🙂

Of course, that argument ignores the tremendous success that the Big Bang theory has in explaining a lot of observations, all of which are addressed in that video. I personally certainly believe that the Big Bang happened, but one should keep an open mind for alternatives since, strictly speaking, all that success is technically circumstantial evidence. 

The good thing about science is that it does keep its mind open for alternatives and is in a constant state of self-correction. 

[Chocorua 112]

1 minute ago, Holdit said:

The good thing about science is that it does keep its mind open for alternatives and is in a constant state of self-correction. 

So true, so true...and so opposite of many other's 'ideas' about our origins.

'Nuff said.

[dave2013 1,130]

12 minutes ago, Holdit said:

The good thing about science is that it does keep its mind open for alternatives and is in a constant state of self-correction. 

Real science, yes. 

Unfortunately, in some areas of science that's not the case.

Dave

[qqwertz 781]

32 minutes ago, overspeed3 said:

I always wondered where and how all the seemingly infinite source of matter originated from in the Big Bang.  I also pondered the actual size of the Big Bang singularity.  But unless cosmologists offer a more plausible theory, I would think the BB still rules for now...

Initially, matter and radiation were indistinguishable, so your first point is more about the source of energy rather than matter. The Big Bang theory just assumes that there is an initial amount of energy (density) and makes no statement about its origin. The Big Bang theory is based on a non-quantum model of gravity (Einstein's relativity) and can only be applied to times after the Planck time (which is 10^-43 s after the start of the Big Bang). To describe the first 10^-43 seconds, you need to use quantum gravity, but that theory is extremely difficult, currently not fully understood, and there is no experimental evidence that it is valid. Quantum gravity makes some statements about the origin of energy, but they can not yet be considered as scientifically sound.

Regarding the actual size of the "singularity", it is very easy to get that wrong. Technically, there is a singularity at t=0, but that is a time where we know that the Big Bang model breaks down. Hence, the best you can do is to say something about the size of the universe at Planck time. That size depends on the model: some cosmological models assume a universe of finite size, but most cosmological models actually deal with a universe that has infinite size, even at Planck time. The Big Bang is then not an explosion that happens at a specific point, it is rather an explosion that happens everywhere simultaneously.

One can, however, say something about the size of the part of the universe that we can see today (the visible universe) at Planck time. An old textbook by Kolb and Turner contains an image of it: a circle with a diameter of about half a centi meter; and that's with 100x magnification 🙂

[birdguy 3,943]

Science is replete with, "We used to think but now we know."  And today's 'now we know' becomes tomorrow's "We used to think."

It's much too deep for me to comprehend.  I'm not taking sides.  

Noel

[Holdit 551]

7 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Real science, yes. 

Unfortunately, in some areas of science that's not the case.

Dave

Creationist "science"?

[sightseer 895]

37 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

Regarding the actual size of the "singularity", it is very easy to get that wrong. Technically, there is a singularity at t=0, but that is a time where we know that the Big Bang model breaks down. Hence, the best you can do is to say something about the size of the universe at Planck time. That size depends on the model: some cosmological models assume a universe of finite size, but most cosmological models actually deal with a universe that has infinite size, even at Planck time. The Big Bang is then not an explosion that happens at a specific point, it is rather an explosion that happens everywhere simultaneously.

 

What bothers me is that all of our math and thought is digital.  Like a picture made up of pixels -- it has finite resolution and we always must make assumptions about what is between those pixels, between the digits, between the decimal places.  The model breaks down at t=0? because of math?  Perhaps the Bing Bang is when time came into being from our perspective and therefore 'everywhere' also.  The energy is here -- its just in a different time.

[qqwertz 781]

7 minutes ago, sightseer said:

What bothers me is that all of our math and thought is digital.  Like a picture made up of pixels -- it has finite resolution and we always must make assumptions about what is between those pixels, between the digits, between the decimal places.  The model breaks down at t=0? because of math?  

Actually, all those models are continuous. They use real numbers, so there is no risk of missing anything between two points.

The Big Bang model breaks down before t=0, around the Planck time (10^43 seconds after the singularity). Mathematically, the model can be used even at t=0, but for times earlier than the Planck time we know that quantum effects will play an important role. Since the Big Bang theory does not include quantum effects, its mathematical predictions are physically not reliable anymore.

[overspeed3 410]

The singularity postulate is still,  apparently, open to question.  So we think there was first radiation?  Then matter?  Or will it be like another age-old question:  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?   

[qqwertz 781]

24 minutes ago, overspeed3 said:

The singularity postulate is still,  apparently, open to question.  So we think there was first radiation?  Then matter?  Or will it be like another age-old question:  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?   

There isn't really a postulate that the Big Bang starts with a singularity. The theory gained popularity after it had been observed that galaxies fly away from us faster if they are further away. All this happened long after the Big Bang commenced, or is still happening. The singularity is just a side effect of the model, and not an essential part of it.

Generally, if a physical prediction contains a singularity, my reaction is that the model must go wrong there, simply because we have never observed a singularity in nature. Most of the time, some assumptions behind the model are not valid anymore if a singularity occurs. 

The answer to what came first (matter or radiation) is very subtle. The difference between the two is that matter has a rest mass (i.e., it can be accelerated or slowed down) while radiation is massless and always moves with the speed of light. But where does the rest mass come from? The Standard Model of particle physics (which has been tested experimentally many times) states that the mass of matter is created by the interaction energy with the Higgs field (remember, E = m c^2, so mass and energy are kind of the same). But this interaction energy depends on the temperature of matter, and above a very large critical temperature, the interaction energy vanishes. In the very early universe, matter was so hot that it lost its mass and thus behaved in the same way as radiation. 

[sightseer 895]

53 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

There isn't really a postulate that the Big Bang starts with a singularity. The theory gained popularity after it had been observed that galaxies fly away from us faster if they are further away. All this happened long after the Big Bang commenced, or is still happening. The singularity is just a side effect of the model, and not an essential part of it.

Do galaxies further away from us in all directions appear to be moving away faster than those closer?  How is it logical that we would be at the center of anything?