Posts Tagged ‘big bang’

Preface: If you think this is fringe personal opinion only, skip to the Scientific American article on this exact topic quoted below.

Did you know the “Big Bang” has some scientifically recognized problems in terms of things that don’t fit observed phenomena & actual measurements? Enter the “Horizon Problem”. But wait! …the “Inflation Model” was supposed to rescue it all – then again, isn’t that just a theory? (an increasingly feeble one at that – see below) …almost like “scientific faith” or hope? But science deals with facts only. Ok, well, many scientific models are not proven yet. Guess they should then be ignored then in any practical sense? Does it work out that way in practice? Nope. Scientific politics is apparently a relatively new branch in the discipline, sadly. Imagine questioning the Big Bang in “respectable” conversation. Try asking the next person that you talk to on the big bang topic for his/her option on the Inflation Model – since it’s really a required part of the whole theory!

The audio outlines the topic in brief & also touches on the idea that the speed of light has changed – as some scientific models seemingly require that it should have – otherwise prediction numbers also don’t crunch as they ‘should’.


Scientific American Magazine – April 2011
The Inflation Debate – Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?
By Paul J. Steinhardt

Cosmologists are reconsidering whether the universe really went through an intense growth spurt (yellowish region) shortly after the big bang.

In Brief

– Cosmic inflation is so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact.
– The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt.
– But some of the theory’s creators, including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.
– Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions.
– Scientists debate among (and within) themselves whether these troubles are teething pains or signs of a deeper rot. Various proposals are circulating for ways to fix inflation or replace it.

Thirty years ago Alan H. Guth, then a struggling physics postdoc at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, gave a series of seminars in which he introduced “inflation” into the lexicon of cosmology. The term refers to a brief burst of hyperaccelerated expansion that, he argued, may have occurred during the first instants after the big bang. One of these seminars took place at Harvard University, where I myself was a postdoc. I was immediately captivated by the idea, and I have been thinking about it almost every day since. Many of my colleagues working in astrophysics, gravitational physics and particle physics have been similarly engrossed. To this day the development and testing of the inflationary theory of the universe is one of the most active and successful areas of scientific investigation.

Its raison d’être is to fill a gap in the original big bang theory. The basic idea of the big bang is that the universe has been slowly expanding and cooling ever since it began some 13.7 billion years ago. This process of expansion and cooling explains many of the detailed features of the universe seen today, but with a catch: the universe had to start off with certain properties. For instance, it had to be extremely uniform, with only extremely tiny variations in the distribution of matter and energy. Also, the universe had to be geometrically flat, meaning that curves and warps in the fabric of space did not bend the paths of light rays and moving objects. Source: Scientific American

Wikipedia explains it as follows:

The horizon problem is a problem with the standard cosmological model of the Big Bang which was identified in the late 1960s, primarily by Charles Misner. It points out that different regions of the universe have not “contacted” each other because of the great distances between them, but nevertheless they have the same temperature and other physical properties. This should not be possible, given that the transfer of information (or energy, heat, etc.) can occur, at most, at the speed of light. The horizon problem may have been answered by inflationary theory, and is one of the reasons for that theory’s formation. Source: Wikipedia

The article continues…

…two galaxies in question cannot have shared any sort of information; they are not in “causal contact”. One would expect, then, that their physical properties would be different, and more generally, that the universe as a whole would have varying properties in different areas. Contrary to this expectation, the universe is in fact extremely isotropic, which also implies homogeneity. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), which fills the universe, is almost precisely the same temperature everywhere in the sky, about 2.728 +/- 0.004 K. The differences in temperature are so slight that it has only recently become possible to develop instruments capable of making the required measurements. This presents a serious problem; if the universe had started with even slightly different temperatures in different areas, then there would simply be no way it could have evened itself out to a common temperature by this point in time.

The magnitude of this problem is quite large. According to the Big Bang model, as the density of the universe dropped while it expanded, it eventually reached a point where photons in the “mix” of particles were no longer immediately impacting matter; they “decoupled” from the plasma and spread out into the universe as a burst of light. This is thought to have occurred about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The volume of any possible information exchange at that time was 900,000 light years across, using the speed of light and the rate of expansion of space in the early universe. Instead, the entire sky has the same temperature, a volume 1088 times larger.

Line of Fire Radio – Dr. Brown Interviews Young Earth Creation Scholar Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. Listen to full audio here.

Big bang illustrations: (questionable)

When we consider the question of what “creation out of nothing” means, we have to consider that the “nothing” mentioned is much less than the drop in this cup, much less than what is in a brand new & empty cup. No air. …and in this line of reasoning even vacuums are not clearly permissible.

…for a sneak peek as to why…

If you say there is a vacuum in the flask, then you are affirming the existence of something in the flask – the vacuum. But since ‘vacuum’ means an absence of something, you are also denying that there is something in the flask. Therefore, ‘There is a vacuum in the flask’ is a contradiction.” – Nothingness ~ Stanford University

If that bends your head a bit – welcome to philosophy. It gets more fun as you get used to it. I can’t think of anyone better to explain the value of philosophy than William Lane Craig – check out the Reasonable Faith site.

“There is no such thing as nothingness, and zero does not exist. Everything is something. Nothing is nothing.” – Nothingness ~ Stanford University

So what did Lawrence Krauss do? Yes, he sneaked in something & pretended it is nothing, and wrote a book about it. A fellow blogger also posted a nice post about it here. People that don’t understand philosophy get tricked into believing clever sounding physicists in this way. Listen to the audio at the top to demystify this riddle. Enjoy. 🙂

Check out Reasonable Faith Podcast. Listen to full audio here.

Should we not mess with “holy science”? Should we just believe the earth is billions of years old and that “man-made global warming cause climate change”? Refer to the climategate scandal (among other things) in case you are not one of the growing number of sceptics on man-made-global warming. People that tell us the Bible is a piece of fiction and folklore also tell us that it’s good to be sceptical … *except* when you want to ‘blaspheme’ their God, called SCIENCE. Apparently this ‘god’ knows all truth & what cannot be revealed by ‘it’ cannot be known – just ask Sam Harris, he thinks so too (referring to his latest book at the time of this writing).

Well, Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins think they are very clever, but Dr Jonathan Sarfati can play blindfolded chess against both of them and 10 other people as well … simultaneously. Really. He also has a doctorate, like them, but he and his equally educated friends think that the earth is only a few thousand years old … like the Bible seems to indicate through the most plain sense of the text.

Listen to this to see if you really have reason to disagree.

Also interesting that in 2006, evolutionist administrators at Wikipedia attempted to turn the Wikipedia page about Sarfati into an attack piece. This went so far as to go to Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee.[7] After the evolutionists were not allowed to have their way, they twice tried to get the article deleted.[8][9]

Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.