• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Age of Universe - Big Bang theory is childish and wrong

Juhazi

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
1,717
Likes
2,897
Location
Finland
1280px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg


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

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
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

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,964
Big Bang is plausible if placed in the context of M-Theory. Where the universe exists in infinite parallels.
 

maxxevv

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,964
Did the Big Bang create God or did He decide the Big Bang?

Its only relevant if the Omnipresent One is not a figment of one's imagination. In the realm of science, your question is completely moot.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,629
Likes
10,202
Location
North-East
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
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

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,629
Likes
10,202
Location
North-East
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

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,635
Likes
7,485
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
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.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,629
Likes
10,202
Location
North-East
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.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,629
Likes
10,202
Location
North-East
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).

The 'I' in this case is just a process that is making the statement I think therefore I am. The nature of this process, anything that came before it or after is forever suspect. Including the concept of I, or others, or time. Freud, et al, come way after making a ton of assumptions about reality that cannot be objectively validated without taking a leap of faith.

The only objectively valid statement about reality is that I exist. Whatever that I happens to be. I'll never be able to get outside of my mind, bypassing my senses, memory, and subjective interpretation to experience the 'true reality'. At least not without some serious drugs ;)
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
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.
It's still making the assumption that you exist. The existence of a self then presumes the existence of other things, or the notion of self would be meaningless. Even allowing for non-existence supposes the possibility of existence and with that some notion of what existence entails. There is no escape.
 
Top Bottom