|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 23, 2011 21:32:05 GMT 1
The highly uniform nature of the cosmic background radiation shows that the early universe was almost completely uniform. This presents two problems for the big bang theory.
Firstly, looking at the microwave background coming from widely dispersed areas it can be shown that such areas are simply too far apart to have been able to 'communicate' with one another, even allowing for light velocity communication. So, how did it come about that they share the same temperature?
Secondly, since the current universe is uniform only on very large scales, when you examine the scale of superclusters and smaller, matter in the universe is quite lumpy.
In view of these problems of uniformity can the CBR still be used as good evidence for the BB model?
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 23, 2011 22:05:37 GMT 1
1) Yes
2) Inflation
Addendum: the main evidence for the BB is the Hubble expansion. That predicts the CMB should be there, and it is. If the BB theory is wrong, then we are still left with the problem as to how we get an almost perfect balckbody spectrum coming from opposite sides of the sky at the same temperature.
Also, fluctuations in the CMb temp actually support current clump nature of the universe, since it is exactly these primordial fluctuations that were amplified, by gravitational collapse, into the structures we see today.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 24, 2011 0:40:24 GMT 1
1) Yes 2) Inflation Addendum: the main evidence for the BB is the Hubble expansion. That predicts the CMB should be there, and it is. If the BB theory is wrong, then we are still left with the problem as to how we get an almost perfect balckbody spectrum coming from opposite sides of the sky at the same temperature. Also, fluctuations in the CMb temp actually support current clump nature of the universe, since it is exactly these primordial fluctuations that were amplified, by gravitational collapse, into the structures we see today. Nope, again, I haven't a bloody clue what you are on about. Why don't you try to be more communicative? |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 24, 2011 7:53:10 GMT 1
1) Yes 2) Inflation Addendum: the main evidence for the BB is the Hubble expansion. That predicts the CMB should be there, and it is. If the BB theory is wrong, then we are still left with the problem as to how we get an almost perfect balckbody spectrum coming from opposite sides of the sky at the same temperature. Also, fluctuations in the CMb temp actually support current clump nature of the universe, since it is exactly these primordial fluctuations that were amplified, by gravitational collapse, into the structures we see today. Nope, again, I haven't a bloody clue what you are on about. Why don't you try to be more communicative? Do not be so dumb Abacus! The answer 'yes' wasto your question 'So, how did it come about that they share the same temperature?' The answer 'inflation' was to your question 'can the CBR still be used as good evidence for the BB model?' I hope that I have made things clearer to you! |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 24, 2011 13:49:01 GMT 1
Isn't it odd that questions of a certain level of grammatical and technical complexity are fine, but answers at the same level are supposedly gobbledegook.............
Stop playing these silly games abacus, and then we might find some people who are actually interested in discussing the finer points of big bang cosmology.................
|
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Dec 31, 2011 16:05:11 GMT 1
Inflation is an idea thought up by a guy named Alan Guth a few decades ago because maths and observations showed the big bang was wrong. It relies on unproven ideas to make it work. This is a good programme to watch. "BBC Horizon: Is Everything We Know About the Universe Wrong?" . thepiratebay.org/torrent/5429416. 1.73 GB. I don't have fast internet but it downloaded overnight. It's about an hour long and features Guth and others speaking on cosmology. One woman who teaches cosmology said she did not believe in parts of it. Others have serious problems with what is so casually accepted by the masses. |
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Dec 31, 2011 22:22:42 GMT 1
Well, one criticism of the BB theory (there are others I won't mention here) is that it violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing so where did the energy come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Jan 1, 2012 11:38:18 GMT 1
I think the idea is that there is a multiverse and that "from elsewhere", a singularity or whatever came about with matter, energy, etc so that over the whole multiverse, there is still the same amount of everything but it has just been moved about.
However that just pushes the problem back one step so we have to account for the multiverse coming into existence.
Some are now coming to the belief in a universe coming from literally nothing since all the pluses and minuses in the universe cancel out. As in +1 and -1 = 0, so +trillion and -trillion = 0, etc so infinite potential as long as both sides cancel out.
|
|
