Big Bang

[LionKing]

http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

Hi. what do you think about this?

[LionKing]

perhaps this explains it better
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/02/10/beginning/

I still find it a bit hard to understand what they mean that the universe existed as a quantum potential before the big bang.. wha td othey think they mean? was there any space" and then the big bang happened in it emitting matter or what?

[smartcooky]

That report is nearly a year old. I think it has been overtaken by recent events at Hanford, Washington Livingston  Louisiana.

[LionKing]

That report is nearly a year old. I think it has been overtaken by recent events at Hanford, Washington Livingston  Louisiana.

what do you mean by overtaken? was it debunked?

[smartcooky]

That report is nearly a year old. I think it has been overtaken by recent events at Hanford, Washington Livingston  Louisiana.

what do you mean by overtaken? was it debunked?

The now confirmed discovery of the existence of Gravitational Waves is yet another confirmation of Einstein's GR. I wonder if the proposers of their new theory will be reviewing it or revising it in light of this recent discovery.

Here is that actual paper the article you linked refers to...
 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093v3.pdf

Now I do not pretend to understand all of this (especially, I'm not well educated enough to follow the higher mathematics) but from what I can understand, I can glean that the authors are not at all suggesting that the Big Bang never happened.

NOTE: This paper was submitted in Dec 2014, some summaries published in Jan/Feb 2015, and since then we have heard nothing more.

[gwiz]

I think they mean that with their equations, if you run time backwards the universe gets ever smaller but never gets to zero, ie no singularity.  It would still produce a very hot and very dense solution corresponding to the time just after the singularity that the previous equations have.

[LionKing]

Thanks to both..so confirm please if I got it right: the big bang happened, but space was there before it? meaning the hot ball was roaming in space then it exploded producing the planets?

[Zakalwe]

Thanks to both..so confirm please if I got it right: the big bang happened, but space was there before it? meaning the hot ball was roaming in space then it exploded producing the planets?

Firstly, the Big bang theory doesn't really concern itself with the initial Big Bang (contrary to the name!), but with the expansion of the Universe after the initial event.

Secondly, space itself was formed at the point of the BB. If the current theory is correct, nothing existed "before" the event*. There was no space for anything to "roam" in or indeed to expand in to.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#bigbang


* we are limited by the words that we have to use. There was no "before" as time itself was also formed out of the Big Bang.

[bknight]

Has anyone watched

In it the theory of the big bang is disputed, due a "review" of red shift. Above my learning grade on whether this has merit or not.

[LionKing]

Thanks to both..so confirm please if I got it right: the big bang happened, but space was there before it? meaning the hot ball was roaming in space then it exploded producing the planets?

Firstly, the Big bang theory doesn't really concern itself with the initial Big Bang (contrary to the name!), but with the expansion of the Universe after the initial event.

Secondly, space itself was formed at the point of the BB. If the current theory is correct, nothing existed "before" the event*. There was no space for anything to "roam" in or indeed to expand in to.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#bigbang


* we are limited by the words that we have to use. There was no "before" as time itself was also formed out of the Big Bang.

Ok so in your understanding what do they mean that the universe has no beginning?

[Zakalwe]

Ok so in your understanding what do they mean that the universe has no beginning?

In my (very limited) understanding, time and space are linked (spacetime). No space = no time. So there was no "before the Big Bang", certainly not as we understand it today anyway.

[LionKing]

Ok so in your understanding what do they mean that the universe has no beginning?

In my (very limited) understanding, time and space are linked (spacetime). No space = no time. So there was no "before the Big Bang", certainly not as we understand it today anyway.

thanks.. very hard to imagine though

[Zakalwe]

thanks.. very hard to imagine though

True, but then there's no obligation on the Universe to make itself comprehensible to a species of evolved primates sitting on a rock orbiting a very ordinary G2V class star.....

[bknight]

thanks.. very hard to imagine though

True, but then there's no obligation on the Universe to make itself comprehensible to a species of evolved primates sitting on a rock orbiting a very ordinary G2V class star.....

That's how discoveries are made, one of the CT's complaints, "science" keeps changing so how can it be "trusted" to validate issues they have.  I get weary of those comments made in context of discussing the VARB etc.

[ka9q]

Yes, many scientific theories (as opposed to science itself, which is a process) keep changing. That's how they get closer and closer to the truth.

It is extremely rare for a widely held theory to be completely disproven and replaced with something quite different. It's far more common for an existing theory to be supplanted with a broader one for which the previous one remains a very good approximation to the previous evidence. Einstein's modifications to Newtonian mechanics are the classic example.