The Big Bang Theory under threat from quantum graphity breakthrough

[Deleted]

See this video:
http://youtu.be/i4UpvpHNGpM
http://www.ted.com/talks/george_smoo..._universe.html

LoL this guy apologized to sheldon for downrating pluto. (which had to be done btw)

[Wikiy]

I feel like probability waves are something so extremely puzzling that the expansion of the universe not being universal or stopping, etc. would not indicate that a god exists, rather that our understanding is incomplete.

Wasn't being completely serious there. If the expansion of the universe simply stopped, though, it would mean one of the basic physical constants got changed. Our current hypothesis is that these constants were randomly "chosen" at the start of the universe, so if it simply got changed, it would mean the Big Bang theory, probably our whole view of the past of the universe was wrong. Expansion stopping is completely akin to the gravitational constant G changing. It would be akin to feeling and having a different gravity on Earth any everywhere.

[ZenX]

because a giant bowl of space spontaneously crystalizing into galaxies means that there was already something there.
the big bang theory means that all the galaxies came out of nothing. do you get me?
how can nothing explode into a universe.

---------- Post added 2012-08-21 at 01:18 AM ----------



actually i do understand what the big bang theory entails thank you very much.
i just simplified it and thats the truth.
the theory goes. they believe there was nothing and from that nothing there was an explosion and hence the big bang theory.
they came up with this theory because the universe is expanding.
just because it is expanding doesnt mean it started from nothing.
i can get a piece of chewing gum and expand it doesnt mean it started from nothing and exploded into everything

Ok let me put this simply like this:
You have a little ball capsule in which there are 100 fudges.
While this distribution is of 100 fudges, it is distributed with the density within a smaller volume of a ball due to the smaller volume. This results in the realization that this ball or the fudge distribution is heavy.
However, if you crack this ball open all 100 fudges get scattered into a table comprising of a greater volume.
Now when you measure the mass of the fudges in the same volume as of the ball, you will measure less. However, this simply due to the scattering.

Basically we have fudges that are moving away from each other every moment. Therefore, it is theorized that in the beginning all these fudges were together in a candy-ball.

[ddsad2212]

No, they tell us where energy comes from, and energy can be turned into matter.

[Svifnymr]

100,000 years.


That's not really an issue, though. Why do you think that's a problem?

Not saying it's a problem, not even saying I care, was explaining what the other poster was asking.

We're drawing conclusions from 100 years of measurements based on the relative positions of stars 100,000 years ago. If the expansion we have recorded and based out theories on is a cosmic sneeze, how would that impact the data?

[Wikiy]

Not saying it's a problem, not even saying I care, was explaining what the other poster was asking.

We're drawing conclusions from 100 years of measurements based on the relative positions of stars 100,000 years ago. If the expansion we have recorded and based out theories on is a cosmic sneeze, how would that impact the data?

I seriously don't understand why you can't understand. As i've said, if you have a galaxy that's, for example, a billion light years away, and we check the light from it, if the expansion stopped at any point in those billion years it took to get here, we'd know. Same goes for a galaxy 13 billion light years away, whose light has been traveling to us almost the whole age of the universe. Also, as i've said, the expansion has been proven to be driven, by among other things, the cosmological constant. Physical constants NEVER change, never have, and never will until a new universe. And until the cosmological constant changes, it would be contradictory to assume the expansion is something non-permanent. Read here a bit more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_...ional_evidence

[Svifnymr]

I seriously don't understand why you can't understand. As i've said, if you have a galaxy that's, for example, a billion light years away, and we check the light from it, if the expansion stopped at any point in those billion years it took to get here, we'd know. Same goes for a galaxy 13 billion light years away, whose light has been traveling to us almost the whole age of the universe.

Can't understand what? Someone asked about the info, the response wasn't an answer, I explained further and again the response is just saying "we've measured it".

We've found consistency in the measurements of the movement of the stars. All evidence shows that it's expanding and accelerating. In a cosmic sense, our window of measuring such things is incredibly small, and the evidence for most of the information is based on readings of what was, because there is no way we actually know where something is NOW other than extrapolation of the work of other astronomers. Any allegory will not satisfy your conviction I'm sure, but it could be like measuring continental drift by watching the tides for a week.

Also, as i've said, the expansion has been proven to be driven, by among other things, the cosmological constant. Physical constants NEVER change, never have, and never will until a new universe. And until the cosmological constant changes, it would be contradictory to assume the expansion is something non-permanent. Read here a bit more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_...ional_evidence

Granted it was just a quick read of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant page, but that certainly doesn't seem to paint the picture of a well defined physical constant that never changes. It seems more of an Occams Razer than a fundamental truth.

[Wikiy]

Can't understand what? Someone asked about the info, the response wasn't an answer, I explained further and again the response is just saying "we've measured it".

We've found consistency in the measurements of the movement of the stars. All evidence shows that it's expanding and accelerating. In a cosmic sense, our window of measuring such things is incredibly small, and the evidence for most of the information is based on readings of what was, because there is no way we actually know where something is NOW other than extrapolation of the work of other astronomers. Any allegory will not satisfy your conviction I'm sure, but it could be like measuring continental drift by watching the tides for a week.

Let's try something else. Imagine a galaxy, again, a billion light years away (at the time its light starts the journey towards the Earth). A billion and something years later, we see that light, and according to the amount it's redshifted, we can measure the original distance between the galaxy and the Earth to a billion years because that's what redshift is proportional to. The original distance, not the one we can see when the light arrives. If the expansion stopped at any point, be it a billion years ago or 1 year before it reaches Earth, we'd know a year later. This hasn't happened though. Looking at galaxies from 13 to 1 billion light years away, they have all been moving away from us. So to assume the expansion stopped in the last 100 years but not in the 13 billion years before that would be, well, unscientific.

Look, sorry if i can't answer your question or whoever asked it, but this isn't a question i've seen asked on the internet, or answered. Scientists aren't stupid though. They take things like this into account and you can be sure the expansion hasn't stopped.

[semaphore]

Not saying it's a problem, not even saying I care, was explaining what the other poster was asking.

We're drawing conclusions from 100 years of measurements based on the relative positions of stars 100,000 years ago. If the expansion we have recorded and based out theories on is a cosmic sneeze, how would that impact the data?

But that's not what we are doing. We're not drawing anything from "100 years of measurement". We are drawing conclusions from measurements that shows what the universe has been doing for the last 13 billion years. Although the information we have lags the actual changes, that has little to no impact on the validity of the current conclusion, because as far as we can tell this expansion is uniform and global. If the expansion stops, we ought to notice this in the light sent from more nearby sources.

And while it is conceivable that the expansion could stop or even reverse during this lag, on the grand scale of things the delay is so minor that it would be wrong to place such undue emphasis on "what if" during the period as opposed to accepting the conclusions that the data is actually showing.

I can't think of any other reason to argue against this without violating either the Cosmological or the Copernican principle, in which case you'll have to supply evidence as to why you think those assumptions are invalid.