What's Wrong With The Big Bang?

“Since the mathematicians invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” – Albert Einstein

“In the beginning there was nothing…which exploded!” – Terry Pratchett

Independent researcher David Drew, author of the website Plasma Cosmology.net walks us through some of the problems with Big Bang theory and the gravity-only universe.

First there was nothing, then there was everything – this is a summation of Big Bang cosmology. Is this theory testable? Is it true?

Where has the Big Bang model failed? Are there better explanations for the shape, size and motion of the objects today’s superior telescopes reveal in outer space?

Please check out David’s webpages, which offer a nice introduction to the topic of plasma cosmology. David is a contributor to Thunderbolts.info and his very active YouTube channel is Soupdragon42.

icon for podbean | Play in Popup

Liam

11 Comments

  1. It’s the story of Genesis. For atheists. It’s also the official story of creation for our secular society, not to be questioned.

    Why do we need a creation myth?

    • Darwinism is ‘Creation’ for atheists. It’s a half-turn of the screw, not really even a full revolution of an idea.

      Darwinism states that life occurs by accident, according to ‘natural laws.’ When you ask them to define “nature,” they resort to vague, pretty descriptions. When you ask them what or who upholds these natural laws, they tell you that you can’t take their words literally, only figuratively. When you ask which ‘law’ causes life to spontaneously emerge in infinite variety and complexity – was it gravity? was it the weak nuclear force? Well, they clam up.

      When you suggest to them that their “nature” seems to be an all-powerful transcendent force capable of doing anything, and therefore a deity, they curse at you.

      Big Bang and Darwinism. Not science, but scientism…

  2. You know, religion sort of works the exact same way. You ask for a definition of God, and you get a vague response. On one hand you are told by some that everything in the Bible is literal, and by others that it shouldn’t be taken literally.

    God = Nature. A catch-all term that explains everything, without explaining anything. No wonder why we never get any straight answers.

    The recent poster and his links explaining that the universe as we know it, basically has to have matter coming in to it from outside, from other universes, otherwise it wouldn’t be able to maintain itself. I read about “Membrane” theory, which pretty much postulated this same notion. That matter and energy are seeping in from “elsewhere”, outside of our universe. I liken it to a balloon except instead of being filled from a nipple at one end, it fills more from the center, like a paintball. A needle is injected and paint squirts in from dead center and the ball expands. I could see the Big Bang in this setting, because it is easy to visualize and makes sense to me. The idea that God snapped his/her fingers and BANG!??? Yeah, sorry, without some proof of that, I can’t just accept such a story blindly.

    But if scientists had said we are kind of like a soap bubble within a cloud of other soap bubbles, and the stuff inside our bubble came from outside, that would be far easier for me to believe and consider. Of course it still begs the question of where did all the material for all the other soap bubbles come from? Well, here’s a good answer. We don’t know.

    We may never know that answer because we might not be able to visualize it. This is why we use terms like God. By using the term God, it allows us to say there was some powerful source that started it all. How or why, we don’t know. But we need it to have some intelligence behind it. Because we can’t accept random, and we can’t accept chance. And this is why science is so hard, because everyone, whether a scientist or not, has to begin with what they know and believe and most important, that they can visualize and then move out from there. We believe in Time. But do we believe in a beginning and an end? For us to see the universe as having “always been”, we can’t visualize that. We have to have a starting place, or we just can’t see it or believe it. So we created a Big Bang, because we needed a beginning. And we created God to explain why? Because we cannot accept it just happened, it had to happen for a reason. Because we have to believe “we” happened for a reason. That we are here for some reason. That there was a plan. That it was all orderly and expected. We need things to be defined for us in ways we can visualize.

    We cannot visualize “Nothing”. It simply isn’t possible, literally. We also cannot visualize “Beginning” because we automatically need to ask… well, what was before that? So the word beginning, to us, is not possible in the sense of our understanding the universe, because we can only say beginning in relation to the creation of the universe, not what happened before the creation of the universe. We always have to ask what came before, and what came before that, and what came before that, because we see things in terms of time. And therefore we cannot visualize the term “Always.” We can’t say the universe has always been here. That there was nothing before, no beginning, because that cannot make sense to us, and we cannot visualize it. This is why we need to have edges to the box. The box can’t just go on forever, because forever doesn’t make sense to us either, we cannot visualize forever.

    But what we can create are “Miracles” and “Catch-all” ideas. Not visuals however. We can say Nature, and we can say God, but we cannot visualize either. Though we do have to put a face or shape or structure to it in our heads, even if it isn’t the same picture for all of us. When someone says Nature, we see something in our minds eye of what that means to us. Maybe some nice, matronly woman in a flowing white cotton dress, bare feet. But the terms are all-encompassing. We say God to mean The Beginning. Always. Forever. He, She or It, made it all happen. It was their design, their intent alone. We even say, “God works in mysterious ways.” “We cannot know God’s will.” That’s a convenient catch-all. We can make the term God, but we cannot visualize God. But we often put a face or form to what we think God may appear to be. Usually our own image, as we often say, “We are made in His image.”

    Humans need to visualize. If someone tells you they went to the store, we visualize that as we hear it, so we can understand it. So it makes sense. When something doesn’t make sense, it is usually because we cannot visualize it. Or as some might say, “Wrap our brains around the idea.”

    So when I began by describing the universe as soap bubbles, we’ve all seen those before. You might have visualized a bunch of soap bubbles in a bathtub or sink. But you saw the edge. The bubbles on top. Not the ones in the middle. Because that is how you see them in real life. So for us, we saw the top, the edges, the outline, the shape. There was a definite size and shape to it all. Because we can’t visualize endless soap bubbles trailing off in to infinite. We can say the word infinite, but we cannot visualize it.

    So if someone just says, Big Bang and leaves it at that, our minds can accept Big Bang. We can visualize an explosion. But we cannot visualize “beginning.” For us, there had to be something “before”. Which is why Big Bang, or soap bubbles are something we can visualize alone, but not as the final story, because for us, “Where did the Big Bang come from?”. There had to be something before it, and something before that, and something before that because we can understand the words infinite and forever, but we cannot see them.

    Science will always have to resort to Miracle and Catch-all explanations because none of us can visualize beginning or end. A shape with no edges. Infinite. Always. These are just words. When we say “God made it happen”, all we are doing is visualizing someone who looks like us, snapping their fingers, and poof, universe. But we still ask, where did God come from? Because nowhere, and nothing, and always are not something we can visualize. So even our all-powerful terms, still cannot be a beginning or end for us.

    Darwin resorted to catch-all terms. Our current scientists often do the same. When people say, “But science has given us so much, look at all our technology!” Yes, it’s stuff we can see. Stuff we can visualize. It’s the only stuff we can really have. If we cannot visualize it, we cannot really bring it in to our lives. So yes, we get toasters, computers, ships, nuclear power, even soap bubbles. There are things we can understand, and things we can work with and manipulate. Science does give us technology and does provide some answers for us. But what we need is for scientists to become Gods. We need them to answer things, visualize things that we cannot. But they cannot. No scientist can visualize beginning or end any more than you or I can. They will need the same structure, same edges to the box we will need, or else we cannot visualize it. Ultimately science will only provide us with vague, catch-all miracle terms as they already have, for the really big questions.

    And in thousands of years, we have come no closer to understanding it all. We invented the term God a long, long time ago. To explain what we could not answer fully. To explain what we could not visualize. And over thousands of years we have learned why some things are as they are, and don’t attribute them to God any longer. But we still have a lot of unanswered questions, things we cannot visualize, that we still use the terms God and Nature to help us visualize and accept. Not answers. Just a single term to mean many things. God means beginning. God means End. God means intent and not random, intelligence and not accident. God puts the edges on a box that we cannot visualize as always and forever, start and finish. Big Bang is a version of God. It is our attempt to create a term for beginning. A visual of beginning. But it still doesn’t work, does it? When someone says Big Bang, do you still ask, what came before it? Can you really visualize just Big Bang all by itself as the beginning of everything?

    I didn’t think so.

    I’m sure the theories will keep changing over the next several thousand years. We’ll keep trying to visualize this universe, but I am also pretty sure we’ll keep having only vague terms, catch-all miracles to help us visualize it all as a neat box or sphere with edges, a beginning and an end, created for a purpose, and not random. Because we can never visualize it any other way. And no scientist can either.

    So if I say the universe is like a bunch of soap bubbles, you have to ask where the soap bubbles came from. You can accept the soap bubbles, but you cannot accept they were always there. So I say they came from soap and water. And you ask where the soap and water came from? And I say, it was always there. And you cannot accept that. Anymore than you can accept God, or Big Bang, or infinite or the beginning or the end.

    • “I’m sure the theories will keep changing over the next several thousand years.”

      That’s an interesting take that I hadn’t considered – that we’ll not only not get there, we’ll really never get there. That is, I have tended to believe that the theoretical concepts will come closer and closer to observable reality (I tend to favor the plasma/electro-magnetic universe concept at present, for evidence’ sake), but that some answers will always be beyond the grasp of knowing.

      But you’re saying, maybe not now, and not for a long, long time….

      I think it would all go much easier if the philosophical view that we were presented did not try to assert that beginning and end we’re talking about. Because that is in the realm of the ‘cannot be known, cannot be seen, cannot be written,’ event.

      If science leaves creation alone, accept to say that it surely is a transcendent event, unknowable in empirical terms, then it allows spiritual/philosophical religious interpretation of beginnings and ends to co-exist, and not be enemies of some of the lab work, which is now permitted to assert its limited, but sometimes interesting observations on all of existence.

  3. Bingo! If you accept that there are limits to what we can know, and you identify those limits or at least keep them in the back of your head, you can move forward. As I said, science/technology has given us a great deal. But it can’t give us all our answers.

    But whose to say that in a few thousand years we won’t adapt and “Darwinize” ourselves in to being able to visualize that which we cannot visualize today?

    It is interesting that because we can sort of visualize time, we therefore cannot visualize beginning and end. Even in such a mundane exercise as trying to decide when your day began, you have to keep adding factors, like when did you start thinking your day began? When did the thought start to form to say your day began? And what time did your last day end? When you went to bed? When you fell asleep? When you finally reached unconsciousness? Can you even know when you reached unconsciousness? Trying to define even something so trivial, you have to keep adding in all sorts of things that make it harder and harder to define beginning and end. And that’s just falling asleep. If we cannot even define that, how do we then try and define the beginning and end of the universe?

    I think of it all like the concept of zero. It was the Aztecs or whoever that first came up with the idea. But we then discovered negative numbers. So there were numbers on either side of zero, just as we ask what was on the other side of the Big Bang? What came before it? In a sense, our concept of negative numbers is really related to our concept of time. There can be no zero. There cannot be a moment for us, when there was nothing before. So we even made our mathematics “time visual” if that makes sense. Math took on aspects of time just by our including negative numbers. And it had to, because we can’t really visualize zero. What is nothing in our minds? A blankness? Can we visualize all black or all white, with nothing else there? And is adding black or white making it more than nothing? I know I can’t see nothing. I can’t visualize emptiness. So if we can’t visualize that, how do we visualize a beginning to the universe?

  4. And as to what you said about accepting this idea that the creation or origin of the universe is beyond our ability to know, we can therefore leave it to the realm of beliefs and not to scientific, empirical facts. We can leave well enough alone. Focus on what we can know and stop bickering about what we cannot. And if all sides can agree that their beliefs cannot be taking as fact, perhaps science can direct its energies to finding out things that are true and quit trying to decide what we should believe, about something which we can never know.

    Science moved from trying to find out what is fact, and got in to the realm of beliefs. That was where we went wrong. But by establishing some facts for us, they built up a credibility. And that credibility has reached a point where they believe that can tell us what to believe, in the absence of facts. Which is religion.

  5. Mainstream to Earth – Errors in the Big Bang Larger than Thought:

    Astronomers’ Doubts About the Dark Side: Errors in Big Bang Data Larger Than Thought?
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm

    ScienceDaily (June 14, 2010) — New research by astronomers in the Physics Department at Durham University suggests that the conventional wisdom about the content of the Universe may be wrong.

    Graduate student Utane Sawangwit and Professor Tom Shanks looked at observations from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite to study the remnant heat from the Big Bang. The two scientists find evidence that the errors in its data may be much larger than previously thought, which in turn makes the standard model of the Universe open to question. The team publish their results in a letter to the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

    Launched in 2001, WMAP measures differences in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, the residual heat of the Big Bang that fills the Universe and appears over the whole of the sky. The angular size of the ripples in the CMB is thought to be connected to the composition of the Universe. The observations of WMAP showed that the ripples were about twice the size of the full Moon, or around a degree across.

    With these results, scientists concluded that the cosmos is made up of 4% ‘normal’ matter, 22% ‘dark’ or invisible matter and 74% ‘dark energy’. Debate about the exact nature of the ‘dark side’ of the Universe — the dark matter and dark energy — continues to this day.

    Sawangwit and Shanks used astronomical objects that appear as unresolved points in radio telescopes to test the way the WMAP telescope smoothes out its maps. They find that the smoothing is much larger than previously believed, suggesting that its measurement of the size of the CMBR ripples is not as accurate as was thought. If true this could mean that the ripples are significantly smaller, which could imply that dark matter and dark energy are not present after all.

    Prof. Shanks comments “CMB observations are a powerful tool for cosmology and it is vital to check for systematic effects. If our results prove correct then it will become less likely that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe. So the evidence that the Universe has a ‘Dark Side’ will weaken!”

    In addition, Durham astronomers recently collaborated in an international team whose research suggested that the structure of the CMB may not provide the robust independent check on the presence of dark energy that it was thought to.

    If dark energy does exist, then it ultimately causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate. On their journey from the CMB to the telescopes like WMAP, photons (the basic particles of electromagnetic radiation including light and radio waves) travel through giant superclusters of galaxies. Normally a CMB photon is first blueshifted (its peak shifts towards the blue end of the spectrum) when it enters the supercluster and then redshifted as it leaves, so that the two effects cancel. However, if the supercluster galaxies are accelerating away from each other because of dark energy, the cancellation is not exact, so photons stay slightly blueshifted after their passage. Slightly higher temperatures should appear in the CMB where the photons have passed through superclusters.

    However, the new results, based on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey which surveyed 1 million luminous red galaxies, suggest that no such effect is seen, again threatening the standard model of the Universe.

    Utane Sawangwit says, “If our result is repeated in new surveys of galaxies in the Southern Hemisphere then this could mean real problems for the existence of dark energy.”

    If the Universe really has no ‘dark side’, it will come as a relief to some theoretical physicists. Having a model dependent on as yet undetected exotic particles that make up dark matter and the completely mysterious dark energy leaves many scientists feeling uncomfortable. It also throws up problems for the birth of stars in galaxies, with as much ‘feedback’ energy needed to prevent their creation as gravity provides to help them form.

    Prof. Shanks concludes “Odds are that the standard model with its enigmatic dark energy and dark matter will survive — but more tests are needed. The European PLANCK satellite, currently out there collecting more CMB data will provide vital new information and help us answer these fundamental questions about the nature of the Universe we live in.”

  6. Run the motion picture backwards.
    The big bang theory is based on the doppler effect which is based on apparent frequency shifts. Frequency is cycles per second. It is assumed that frequency varies with shifts in the number of cycles per second, assuming the second is a constant. But time is a variable and what if the apparent frequency shift is actually a time shift with the number of cycles constant? So if frequency is made up of two variables how can you tell which one or both varies when the frequency varies? (It’s like knowing whether the amperage or resistance or both changed when the voltage in the circuit changed.) So if the red shift means everything in space is receding from us and you run the motion picture backwards you have the big bang theory. But what if the red shift means time shifts what do you have? Do we understand time well enough throughout the universe to know this is not the case?
    Is the most progress made in science when a theory leading us in the wrong direction is trashed, giving us at least the chance to move in the right direction? Like maybe hiv causes aids is still looking for a study to prove it or at least show hiv is the probable cause of aids?
    Gary

    • I like the part where you ask, “Do we understand time well enough…?” There is so much we don’t know, yet scientists still claim to be infalible in their theories and positions about the universe, HIV and everything else.

      I just read a story the other day about how they now think plankton in the oceans may be a contributing factor–if not the factor– in hurricanes being created. Plankton! And they just learned this recently, so how could all of those computer models showing how our weather systems work in relation to global warming be accurate if we don’t know enough to make a complete picture? Answer: We can’t!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *