Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry here is the link


What is the cosmic microwave background radiation?

What is the cosmic microwave background radiation? - Scientific American

Thanks.....now I interpret the article as implying CMBR as red shifted light to the microwave portion of the EM spectrum.

Now you say it has nothing to do with red shift....but it is the expanding universe which, according to BB theory is the cause of lengthening of wavelengths, aka red shift, so how do you respond to this.....

"Big Bang! Red Shift and CMBR | Oxbridge
Big Bang! Red Shift and CMBR

Another piece of evidence which supports the Big Bang Theory is CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation). Two men named Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson realised that if the Big Bang was real that when atom were formed a glowing light would have also been released. Because the universe is supposedly always expanding, the light which is actually ‘high-energy gamma radiation’ would be red shifted by a factor of 1000."

The Sci Am article may have used 'stretched wavelengths' instead of 'red shift'...but CMBR is still red shifted BB 'light'...

 

[shawn001]

Thanks.....now I interpret the article as implying CMBR as red shifted light to the microwave portion of the EM spectrum.

Now you say it has nothing to do with red shift....but it is the expanding universe which, according to BB theory is the cause of lengthening of wavelengths, aka red shift, so how do you respond to this.....

"Big Bang! Red Shift and CMBR | Oxbridge
Big Bang! Red Shift and CMBR

Another piece of evidence which supports the Big Bang Theory is CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation). Two men named Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson realised that if the Big Bang was real that when atom were formed a glowing light would have also been released. Because the universe is supposedly always expanding, the light which is actually ‘high-energy gamma radiation’ would be red shifted by a factor of 1000."

The Sci Am article may have used 'stretched wavelengths' instead of 'red shift'...but CMBR is still red shifted BB 'light'...

"
A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Another kind of redshift is cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational redshift is a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blueshift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field. However, redshift is a more common term and sometimes blueshift is referred to as negative redshift.

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"
The cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmological redshift-distance relation are together regarded as the best available evidence for the Big Bang theory. Measurements of the CMB have made the inflationary Big Bang theory the Standard Model of Cosmology.[74] The discovery of the CMB in the mid-1960s curtailed interest in alternatives such as the steady state theory.[75]

The CMB essentially confirms the Big Bang theory. In the late 1940s Alpher and Herman reasoned that if there was a big bang, the expansion of the Universe would have stretched and cooled the high-energy radiation of the very early Universe into the microwave region and down to a temperature of about 5 K. They were slightly off with their estimate, but they had exactly the right idea. They predicted the CMB. It took another 15 years for Penzias and Wilson to stumble into discovering that the microwave background was actually there.[76]

The CMB gives a snapshot of the universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thus making the Universe transparent to radiation. When it originated some 380,000 years after the Big Bang—this time is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling—the temperature of the Universe was about 3000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen.[77]

Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1,100[78] due to the expansion of the Universe. As the Universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, making the radiation's temperature inversely proportional to a parameter called the Universe's scale length. The temperature Tr of the CMB as a function of redshift, z, can be shown to be proportional to the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day (2.725 K or 0.235 meV):[79]

Tr = 2.725(1 + z)
For details about the reasoning that the radiation is evidence for the Big Bang, see Cosmic background radiation of the Big Bang.


Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shawn001]

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"
A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Another kind of redshift is cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational redshift is a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blueshift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field. However, redshift is a more common term and sometimes blueshift is referred to as negative redshift.

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"
The cosmic microwave background radiation and the cosmological redshift-distance relation are together regarded as the best available evidence for the Big Bang theory. Measurements of the CMB have made the inflationary Big Bang theory the Standard Model of Cosmology.[74] The discovery of the CMB in the mid-1960s curtailed interest in alternatives such as the steady state theory.[75]

The CMB essentially confirms the Big Bang theory. In the late 1940s Alpher and Herman reasoned that if there was a big bang, the expansion of the Universe would have stretched and cooled the high-energy radiation of the very early Universe into the microwave region and down to a temperature of about 5 K. They were slightly off with their estimate, but they had exactly the right idea. They predicted the CMB. It took another 15 years for Penzias and Wilson to stumble into discovering that the microwave background was actually there.[76]

The CMB gives a snapshot of the universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thus making the Universe transparent to radiation. When it originated some 380,000 years after the Big Bang—this time is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling—the temperature of the Universe was about 3000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen.[77]

Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1,100[78] due to the expansion of the Universe. As the Universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, making the radiation's temperature inversely proportional to a parameter called the Universe's scale length. The temperature Tr of the CMB as a function of redshift, z, can be shown to be proportional to the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day (2.725 K or 0.235 meV):[79]

Tr = 2.725(1 + z)
For details about the reasoning that the radiation is evidence for the Big Bang, see Cosmic background radiation of the Big Bang.

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is just going round and round....you believe the present orthodox theory of BB cosmic creation is settled, I do not.....by a long shot. I will post non BB cosmological science articles as they arise, not because I need to convert anyone, but because I am sincerely interested in new non-orthodox science papers.... No need to try and prove me wrong, nor I you...science is an ever evolving process and the future will reveal the ultimate knowledge...

Btw, I treat space exploration science the same way, I think that orthodox 'explosive' thrust propulsion systems have led the way, but electric ion thrust is is in process, nuclear on the way, and space vacuum propulsion systems are seeing theoretical interest. I presume you have seen the Dr Hal Puthoff et al paper they did for the USAF on zpe propulsion I've posted here on RF?

 

[`mud]

When I see graphics depicting the 'microwave backround' I wonder what the outside edges represent ?
Where does the void of nothingness begin ?
Someone here is full of crap ?
Maybe it's me ?
Can energy pass through a void ?
~
'mud

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Mud....it's the ultimate 'complete knowledge of the universe for dummies'....

 

[`mud]

?
~
'mud

 

[Ben Dhyan]

..it was a sarc remark about the stupid graphic.... for the reason you addressed.. It's a mud map that allows the BB true believers to think they understand, a back of the envelope mud map of the universe. . Anyone who ponders the deeper questions of time and space could never fall for it...

 

[`mud]

OK....I get it......
But I don't really understand it.
How does one know where the 'void' begins ?
Like I said......I don't get it.
And thank you for your patience with my ignorance.
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

hey Ben d,
If one forgets about the absence of the occurrence of the BB,
one could almost believe in God, wouldn't one ?
~
'mud

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK....I get it......
But I don't really understand it.
How does one know where the 'void' begins ?
Like I said......I don't get it.
And thank you for your patience with my ignorance.
~
'mud

To my understanding there is no void so the question doesn't arise.
The cosmos can be understood to be infinite as it couldn't be any other way.
To suggest there was a beginning of existence requires explaining what existed before and the cause of its start....and there is none...

The other subtle subject is time....there is none in the absolute sense....the abstracted concept of time arises due to a secondary observer who perceives the relative movement of things and measures the rate of change. In reality there is only the eternal seamless movement of cosmic substance in infinite space...

And the ultimate subtle subject is the conceptual mind itself...concepts are like like little graphics created by the brain meant to represent something real outside of it, but people forget that, and eventually end up taking their abstractions as reality itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

hey Ben d,
If one forgets about the absence of the occurrence of the BB,
one could almost believe in God, wouldn't one ?
~
'mud

Yes...the one eternal infinity is the Tao, is Nirvana, is Brahman, etc.. It is forever beyond apprehension by dualistic observation...ie. observer of universe, and observed universe...

 

[shawn001]

This is just going round and round....you believe the present orthodox theory of BB cosmic creation is settled, I do not.....by a long shot. I will post non BB cosmological science articles as they arise, not because I need to convert anyone, but because I am sincerely interested in new non-orthodox science papers.... No need to try and prove me wrong, nor I you...science is an ever evolving process and the future will reveal the ultimate knowledge...

Btw, I treat space exploration science the same way, I think that orthodox 'explosive' thrust propulsion systems have led the way, but electric ion thrust is is in process, nuclear on the way, and space vacuum propulsion systems are seeing theoretical interest. I presume you have seen the Dr Hal Puthoff et al paper they did for the USAF on zpe propulsion I've posted here on RF?

".you believe the present orthodox theory of BB cosmic creation is settled"

No I know its not, but the CMB is still light from the big bang. But the big bang theory is one of the strongest scientific theories in science along with QM and evolution.

The Big Bang theory doesn't state what cause it, only that the universe was hot and dense in the past and we actually have captured that in the CMB, the after glow of the big bang.

An analogy is abiogenesis and evolution.

In this case abiogenesis would be what started the Bang and we don't know, but we do know there was a bang and the universe is expanding.

I am into new propulsion technologies. I did see the paper on it. I know people working on new propulsion technologies.

 

[shawn001]

When I see graphics depicting the 'microwave backround' I wonder what the outside edges represent ?
Where does the void of nothingness begin ?
Someone here is full of crap ?
Maybe it's me ?
Can energy pass through a void ?
~
'mud

Mud, its like being in a ballon, you can't tell. They are looking at the CMB for any imprints on it of other universes being formed. But none have been found yet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

".you believe the present orthodox theory of BB cosmic creation is settled"

No I know its not, but the CMB is still light from the big bang. But the big bang theory is one of the strongest scientific theories in science along with QM and evolution.

The Big Bang theory doesn't state what cause it, only that the universe was hot and dense in the past and we actually have captured that in the CMB, the after glow of the big bang.

An analogy is abiogenesis and evolution.

In this case abiogenesis would be what started the Bang and we don't know, but we do know there was a bang and the universe is expanding.

I am into new propulsion technologies. I did see the paper on it. I know people working on new propulsion technologies.

Shawn, that's the problem, BB theory ignores cause for the start of everything, and then cause is used to explain following expansion....cart before the horse anyone?...come on now!

Abiogenesis is hypothetical, not real, and is supposed to be a phenomenon where living organisms come into existence from non-living matter, so your analogy is that a living universe came into existence from non-life...come on!

And the BB is theory, and though many there are that believe it is the best model to explain creation, that does not make it true.....once, most scientists thought the space vacuum was empty, but it now found to be infinitely dense.....BB theory originated at a time when science thought they were dealing with 100% of the universe, now they find out it was only 5%...and still they cling to the old belief because it is still the best model available...come on!

 

[shawn001]

Shawn, that's the problem, BB theory ignores cause for the start of everything, and then cause is used to explain following expansion....come on now!

Abiogenesis is hypothetical, not real, and is supposed to be a phenomenon where living organisms come into existence from non-living matter, so your analogy is that a living universe came into existence from non-life...come on!

And the BB is theory, and though many there are that believe it is the best model to explain creation, that does not make it true.....once, most scientists thought the space vacuum was empty, but it now found to be infinitely dense...

"Shawn, that's the problem, BB theory ignores cause for the start of everything"

No they don't millions of scientists are working on it. That's not ignoring the problem.

The universe is expanding and that is a fact, in fact its expanding faster then light. We also know this because the CMB has no stars or galaxies in it, they form from the material we see in it. We know the entire universe has and is evolving.


"Abiogenesis is hypothetical, not real, and is supposed to be a phenomenon where living organisms come into existence from non-living matter"

Because it hypothetical doesn't mean its not real, in fact in can be shown pretty well. Again more research is being down on it.

Jack Szostak is making a lot of progress on the issue.

Jack William Szostak (born November 9, 1952)[1] is a Canadian American[2]biologist of Polish British descent and Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Alexander Rich Distinguished Investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, along with Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol W. Greider, for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres.

Jack W. Szostak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 1: The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth
Szostak begins his lecture with examples of the extreme environments in which life exists on Earth. He postulates that given the large number of earth-like planets orbiting sun-like stars, and the ability of microbial life to exist in a wide range of environments, it is probable that an environment that could support life exists somewhere in our galaxy. However, whether or not life does exist elsewhere, depends on the answer to the question of how difficult it is for life to arise from the chemistry of the early planets. Szostak proceeds to demonstrate that by starting with simple molecules and conditions found on the early earth, it may in fact be possible to generate a primitive, self-replicating protocell.

Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 2: Protocell Membranes

Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 3: Non-enzymatic Copying of Nucleic Acid Templates

"so your analogy is that a living universe came into existence from non-life...come on!"

What? What living universe? We are made from star dust. We are carbon based life forms and carbon comes from Nucleosynthesis. As does all the other heavy metals in our bodies. We also know no life could exist on earth when it first formed, until it cooled enough for the Van Allen belts to form, otherwise all life would be killed from solar radation. We also know without the evolution of cyynobacteria, Earth would be like Titan and not have the oxygen atmosphere we have today.

The beginning of the BB and inflation are add on's to it. But not the theory itself.

Your not going to argue I hope the universe isn't exapanding?


What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang?

"
These are known as the 4 pillars of the Big Bang Theory. Four independent lines of evidence that build up one of the most influential and well-supported theories in all of cosmology. But there are more lines of evidence. There are fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation, we don’t see any stars older than 13.8 billion years, the discoveries of dark matter and dark energy, along with how the light curves from distant supernovae.

So, even though it’s a theory, we should regard it the same way that we regard gravity, evolution and general relativity. We have a pretty good idea of what’s going on, and we’ve come up with a good way to understand and explain it. As time progresses we’ll come up with more inventive experiments to throw at. We’ll refine our understanding and the theory that goes along with it.

Most importantly, we can have confidence when talking about what we know about the early stages of our magnificent Universe and why we understand it to be true.


What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang?


Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

WMAP Big Bang Theory


Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang model of cosmology rests on two key ideas that date back to the early 20th century: General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle. By assuming that the matter in the universe is distributed uniformly on the largest scales, one can use General Relativity to compute the corresponding gravitational effects of that matter. Since gravity is a property of space-time in General Relativity, this is equivalent to computing the dynamics of space-time itself. The story unfolds as follows:

WMAP Big Bang Concepts


Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.
These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.

WMAP Big Bang Tests



Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab

WASHINGTON – By smashing gold particles together at super-fast speeds, physicists have basically melted protons, creating a kind of "quark soup" of matter that is about 250,000 times hotter than the center of the sun and similar to conditions just after the birth of the universe.Scientists reported in 2005 that they suspected they had created this unique state of matter, but for the first time they have verified that the extreme temperatures necessary have been reached.

"This is the hottest matter ever created in the laboratory," Steven Vigdor, associate laboratory director for nuclear and particle physics at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y., said Monday at a meeting of the American Physical Society in Washington, D.C. "The temperature is hot enough to melt protons and neutrons."


The gold particles used in the experiment were only the nuclei — the positively-charged part of the atom made of protons and neutrons. Two sprays of gold nuclei were accelerated in opposite directions along a circular track in an underground "atom smasher" called the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) Brookhaven.

Traveling along this 2.4-mile-long (3.9 km) circle, the gold nuclei were accelerated to near the speed of light. When two of these particles smashed into each other, their collisions produced such huge amounts of energy that the matter was heated up to about 7 trillion degrees Fahrenheit (4 trillion degrees Celsius).

Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab

 

[shawn001]

I missed this one.

".once, most scientists thought the space vacuum was empty, but it now found to be infinitely dense..."

Once scientist thought we lived in a static universe and that doesn't work out at all.



They still can see the energy in a vacuum, but do know its there. Once Einstein didn't like QM, but we now know QM is also one of the strongest theories in science. Its Einsteins B-day today by the way.

Empty Space is NOT Empty


"An atom is mostly empty space, but empty space is mostly not empty. The reason it looks empty is because electrons and photons don't interact with the stuff that is there, quark and gluon field fluctuations.
It actually takes energy to clear out space and make a true 'empty' vacuum. This seems incredibly counter-intuitive but we can make an analogy to a permanent magnet. When at low energies, like at room temperature, there is a magnetic field around the magnet due to the alignment of all the magnetic moments of the atoms. But if you add some energy to it by heating it, the particles gain thermal energy, which above the Curie temperature makes their magnetic moments randomly oriented and hence destroying the magnetic field. So in this case energy is needed to clear out the field, just as in the quantum vacuum."

Any you do know Hawking and Krauss can basically explain the beginning of the universe by virtual particles and not break any laws of physics. Not that its excepted yet either.

 

[shawn001]

This is new and might also helps us understand more.


Image Captures Light's Spooky Dual Nature for 1st Time

Image Captures Light's Spooky Dual Nature for 1st Time

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Shawn, an eternal infinite universe doesn't need scientific proof, it was, is, and will always be....to prove this isn't true, you would need to prove that nothing preceded something...

What's more, an eternal infinite living universe doesn't require proof, it was, is, and will always be alive...to prove this isn't true, you need to prove that that the source of life is non-life...

By proof I don't mean mental conceptualizations....I mean the actual creation of some non-living thing from nothing, and the second display of creation needed to convince me is the creation of life from the non-life..

Now since I understand that the universe is alive, the theory of evolution is not life arising from non-life, it is just a growing complexity of life from experience.. it is how the whole cosmos works...

So if my understanding is correct, the universe is holarchical in structure, so if my mortal body is alive, than I assume the organ, tissues, cells, molecules, etc., also have a relative life......and looking up, I understand that all the living kingdoms of nature of the planet are not living in a corpse, and that earth is alive, therefore the solar system, the milky way galaxy...the universe...do you see my gist....

Shawn, you appear to be a devout atheist of great faith in prophets like Hawking, but you have the potential within you to discover what and who you are in a greater context than the limited picture provided by materialism. All the best....

 

[shawn001]

Shawn, an eternal infinite universe doesn't need scientific proof, it was, is, and will always be....to prove this isn't true, you would need to prove that nothing preceded something...

What's more, an eternal infinite living universe doesn't require proof, it was, is, and will always be alive...to prove this isn't true, you need to prove that that the source of life is non-life...

By proof I don't mean mental conceptualizations....I mean the actual creation of some non-living thing from nothing, and the second display of creation needed to convince me is the creation of life from the non-life..

Now since I understand that the universe is alive, the theory of evolution is not life arising from non-life, it is just a growing complexity of life from experience.. it is how the whole cosmos works...

So if my understanding is correct, the universe is holarchical in structure, so if my mortal body is alive, than I assume the organ, tissues, cells, molecules, etc., also have a relative life......and looking up, I understand that all the living kingdoms of nature of the planet are not living in a corpse, and that earth is alive, therefore the solar system, the milky way galaxy...the universe...do you see my gist....

Shawn, you appear to be a devout atheist of great faith in prophets like Hawking, but you have the potential within you to discover what and who you are in a greater context than the limited picture provided by materialism. All the best....

"an eternal infinite universe doesn't need scientific proof"

What, yes it does unless we just want to imagine and go with nothing but beliefs.


it was, is, and will always be....to prove this isn't true, you would need to prove that nothing preceded something...

There is no such thing as No-Thing as the Vacuum energy shows.

"What's more, an eternal infinite living universe doesn't require proof, it was, is, and will always be alive...to prove this isn't true, you need to prove that that the source of life is non-life..."

Your just making statements here. Are you saying rocks are living?

"By proof I don't mean mental conceptualizations....I mean the actual creation of some non-living thing from nothing, and the second display of creation needed to convince me is the creation of life from the non-life.."

I don't think your watching the videos I am posting, showing how organic matter can become life as we know it.


"Now since I understand that the universe is alive, the theory of evolution is not life arising from non-life, it is just a growing complexity of life from experience.. it is how the whole cosmos works.."

"Now since I understand that the universe is alive"

This is a problem and does not match our ideas on life and importantly central nervous systems.

"the theory of evolution is not life arising from non-life, it is just a growing complexity of life from experience."

I have no idea what you mean here, nor is that the complexities of evolution.

You say the Earth is alive? If it is why doesn't it kick our butts off it as we poison it.

The sun is burning helium to hydrogen, does it think? Is it intelligent? Is it self aware?

Can you show at all the universe is self aware?


"Shawn, you appear to be a devout atheist of great faith in prophets like Hawking, but you have the potential within you to discover what and who you are in a greater context than the limited picture provided by materialism. All the best...."

Ben, I have to tell you, first you called me a Christian and now an atheist and use terms like the "great faith in prophets like Hawking" which are all wrong. I don't think or use the term "prophets" or faith" in science. I am not a christian or and atheist.


"but you have the potential within you to discover what and who you are in a greater context than the limited picture provided by materialism. All the best...'

I don't believe the universe or nature is a limited picture. I am also pretty happy with myself and the greater context and a deep peace. You keep trying to label me for some reason.