• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Age of Universe - Big Bang theory is childish and wrong

Juhazi

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
339
Likes
277
Location
Finland
#1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
"The prevailing model for the evolution of the Universe is the Big Bang theory.[40][41] The Big Bang model states that the earliest state of the Universe was an extremely hot and dense one, and that the Universe subsequently expanded and cooled. "

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
"In a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason, why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some time. Any such "lighting up time" would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe. The situation was different, however, when it was realised that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago. "

I think that the universe has always existed and it is in a fluctuating state.
I am not a scientist, but I just can't take either theory - static or big bang. What we consider expansion is just a too local and short-time observation.

Philosophically it is also fruitless to think about WHY the universe exists (if it exists in the first place). The nature and universe, including life and evolution on the planet Earth, don't have any reason intrinsically, no agenda or purpose. It just exists.

PLEASE, keep this discussion polite and free of religious proclamations. If your explanation includes the creator (a god of some kind), that is okay to tell.
 
Last edited:

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
3,517
Likes
2,744
#2
What else I find rather fascinating is that - if the big bang theory is correct - life on earth has existed for around 1/4 of the total time that the universe has existed. Of course each of our individual lives is just a blip in the scheme of things, but life itself (even if it is only located on one planet) is by any timescale a lasting phenomenon.
 

maxxevv

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
859
Likes
639
#3
Big Bang is plausible if placed in the context of M-Theory. Where the universe exists in infinite parallels.
 

pkane

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
630
Likes
680
#6
I think that the universe has always existed and it is in a fluctuating state.
I am not a scientist, but I just can't take either theory - static or big bang. What we consider expansion is just a too local and short-time observation.

Philosophically it is also fruitless to think about WHY the universe exists (if it exists in the first place). The nature and universe, including life and evolution on the planet Earth, don't have any reason intrinsically, no agenda or purpose. It just exists.
Philosophically, at least a universe exists. I know this for sure, since I think, therefore I am, and if I exist, there must be something that's supporting my existence. Some sort of universe where my mind exists and my thinking processes are taking place.

Now if this is the universe that I (we?) think I see, and whether this is the only universe, and whether it existed forever or came into existence, or was created or is in a permanent fluctuating state are all excellent questions with no good scientific answers. Scientists base the age of the universe and the idea of a big bang on a number of compelling clues. But these are also highly inadequate to explain what came before it.

Then, there is this whole concept of time. We don't understand it, we don't know if it's 'universal' (Einstein already demonstrated that it's relative, and can be affected by acceleration and gravity, but does it exist everywhere?) We don't know if time always existed. In fact, it's so poorly defined that there is no way to describe time without referring to time itself. For example what does the word 'always' mean if we don't know what time is? Did time exist before the big bang and what does 'before' mean if time didn't exist then? And does it make any sense to talk about time in the context of a multi-verse, or does time exist only in some universes?

Did the universe come into existence due to a quantum fluctuation? Maybe. Are there infinitely many universes winking into and out of existence in a larger multiverse? Maybe. Was our universe created as a computer simulation in a high-school project? Also maybe.
 
Last edited:

PierreV

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
341
Likes
740
#7
As far as the connection with audio is concerned, one should really investigate the role of dark matter in deeper blacks and dark energy in slam. On "quantum" optimized cables, of course.

Other than that, the big bang theory led to a ton of predictions in the last century that were verified much later, in a way that is similar to what happened with Newton and Einstein's theories. And no, we don't consider on a local and short time frame. We could, starting from the concept, make predictions about what (for example) a 1 billion year old Universe would look like well before we observed it. We could start with a conceptual big bang of hydrogen (and even before that) and predict the composition of the Universe and then verified it - at different ages. We could predict that the big "explosion" would leave traces in the form of radiation, which we found 30 or so years later (CMB). We could make predictions about it which we mostly verified 70-80 years later. Likewise for how matter in general should be organized and dozens of other less intuitive issues.

The "Big Bang" is roughly correct, in the way that Newton was roughly correct. We will fine tune it, sure. That fine tuning may lead to new insights that will be what relativity was to Newton and change our understanding of a lot of things, but it will stay around for a very long while.
 

PierreV

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
341
Likes
740
#8
Maybe. Was our universe created as a computer simulation in a high-school project? Also maybe.
The debate on the testability or non-testability of the simulation hypothesis is one of the most amusing thing happening right now :) Beats testing cables in my book.
 

pkane

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
630
Likes
680
#9
The debate on the testability or non-testability of the simulation hypothesis is one of the most amusing thing happening right now :) Beats testing cables in my book.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

I particularly worry about that last line in the article:
a simulated universe introduces another disturbing possibility. “What happens,” Tyson said, “if there’s a bug that crashes the entire program?”
 

mansr

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
494
Likes
1,124
Location
Hampshire
#11

mansr

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
494
Likes
1,124
Location
Hampshire
#14
Douglas Adams had some thoughts on the subject:

«There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.»

«In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.»
 

tmtomh

Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
127
Likes
242
#16
Philosophically it is also fruitless to think about WHY the universe exists (if it exists in the first place). The nature and universe, including life and evolution on the planet Earth, don't have any reason intrinsically, no agenda or purpose. It just exists.
I have to agree with you on this. I've long been puzzled at the obsession with "why we are here," even among many people who claim not to believe in a conventional god. The idea that life, and the entire universe, would exist for a reason, in the sense of "reason" as some kind of intentional or moral explanation that happens to make sense to our primate brains, strikes me as incredibly anthropocentric and, from a cosmological point of view, entirely beside the point.
 

PierreV

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
341
Likes
740
#17
What if that has already happened?
Oh, the risk of that is small: the guys simulating our simulators have formally verified the code running us. But, yes, we have to consider the possibility that the guys simulating the guys who simulate our simulators may have hard-coded that belief.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
11
Likes
8
#18
Philosophically, at least a universe exists. I know this for sure, since I think, therefore I am, and if I exist, there must be something that's supporting my existence. Some sort of universe where my mind exists and my thinking processes are taking place.

Now if this is the universe that I (we?) think I see, and whether this is the only universe, and whether it existed forever or came into existence, or was created or is in a permanent fluctuating state are all excellent questions with no good scientific answers. Scientists base the age of the universe and the idea of a big bang on a number of compelling clues. But these are also highly inadequate to explain what came before it.

Then, there is this whole concept of time. We don't understand it, we don't know if it's 'universal' (Einstein already demonstrated that it's relative, and can be affected by acceleration and gravity, but does it exist everywhere?) We don't know if time always existed. In fact, it's so poorly defined that there is no way to describe time without referring to time itself. For example what does the word 'always' mean if we don't know what time is? Did time exist before the big bang and what does 'before' mean if time didn't exist then? And does it make any sense to talk about time in the context of a multi-verse, or does time exist only in some universes?

Did the universe come into existence due to a quantum fluctuation? Maybe. Are there infinitely many universes winking into and out of existence in a larger multiverse? Maybe. Was our universe created as a computer simulation in a high-school project? Also maybe.
I find it funny just how influential I think, therefore I am has come to be. It is really a throwaway thought put into the mandatory introduction to the work that, as was par for the course, was meant to appease the church. Those whole first sections were basically statements saying that their work is never meant to be taken as contradicting the church. We have spent the post-enlightenment period trying to disabuse people of this silly notion. There is no I (ego, cogito). We are a plurality, whether in language or the world we are "thrown into" or in biology (we would be dead without gut bacteria, we are a species that could not survive alone after birth, etc.). This is just as bad as the people who stress the relationship between Hegel and the dialectical method. I believe he uses the word dialectical a few times total.
 

pkane

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
630
Likes
680
#19
I find it funny just how influential I think, therefore I am has come to be.
It is the only statement that I can make about reality that doesn't require a leap of faith. Everything else, from the existence of others, to gut bacteria or the existence of other universes, cannot be logically derived from first principles without making some assumptions about reality.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
11
Likes
8
#20
It is the only statement that I can make about reality that doesn't require a leap of faith. Everything else, from the existence of others, to gut bacteria or the existence of other universes, cannot be logically derived from first principles without making some assumptions about reality.
That I is just as socially constructed as every other word on that passage. You are not born as an I but spend your baby time thinking everything is a part of you (Freud and Lacan here).
 
Top Bottom