Advancements since original Big Bang theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
How many advancements in science since the original idea of the Big Bang?

I know that the question is huge. But what are the fundamental advances that would have an effect on the original theory?

Thanks!

I am not here to start an argument. I would like a list of the important scientific developments.

Thanks!
 
Jim_Baur said:
How many advancements in science since the original idea of the Big Bang?

I know that the question is huge. But what are the fundamental advances that would have an effect on the original theory?
Click to expand...
Wiki had a list of significant discoveries and theories that either support or challenge the Big Bang Theory. That may make for one of a number of starting points.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory
 
Thanks!

I was really interested in the new discoveries in physics.

I think that I worded the question poorly.

Dark energy and dark matter seem to be powerful concepts and even more powerful if they actually exist.

How do they effect the Big Bang?

If there is so much extra matter in the universe, that is, more matter than the theory of the Big Bang calculated, how does that change the original theory?

Should an entirely new theory and name be used?

Also, did the Big Bang assume that the universe was limited?

I would assume that an infinite universe cannot be handled by math. Is that correct?

Thanks!

Thanks!
 
The biggest assumption I’m seeing in the big bang theory is the inflation theory. Its basically a way of explaining away the problem of why the “bang” ended up shooting matter out in a flat plane rather than in all directions. The Universe is not globe shaped but rather spread out more along a flat plane. You would expect an explosion to shoot matter in all directions and the inflation theory assumes it did exactly that but over time “forces” have flattened the galaxy out. The explanation for the “forces” is pretty technical and very theoretical. It basically turns out that the big bang theory relies on some initial conditions being present at the time of the “bang”.

My take on the big bang theory is this:
We observed the fact that the Universe is in constant motion and moving in an outward direction from a point along a nearly flat plane. Something had to put all this matter into motion, and the fact that it appears to be moving outward from a specific point, tends to make it reasonable that it all started from this point with a bang that put it all in motion. The rest of the big bang theory is scientists trying to figure out how this would all work and what conditions would be necessary for us to end up with the results we have ended up with. Thus you get theories like the inflation theory that try to explain how an explosion that you would assume would throw matter out in all directions, ended up flattening out on itself to get the setup of the galaxy we live in today.
 
Nate13

In the flat directions of the universe, have humans observed the edge of the universe?

Oh, do humans even know how the edge of the universe would look?

If the universe has know known bounds, how does our human created math measure that?

How would those unknowns apply to the Big Bang?

It seems intuitive, math cannot handle the equations to go back in time and space if we do not know the limits of space.

How many equations would there be?
 
Jim_Baur said:
Nate13

In the flat directions of the universe, have humans observed the edge of the universe?

Oh, do humans even know how the edge of the universe would look?
Click to expand...
Think of the universe as the surface of a balloon: where is the edge? There really isn’t one. What we can say about the “edge” is that it is the maximum distance that light could have traveled since the beginning of time: about 47 billion light years.
If the universe has know known bounds, how does our human created math measure that?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. The “edge” of the light-cone of our planet is about 47 billion light years, it’s something that could have been known since Isaac Newton (distance = velocity * time)
How would those unknowns apply to the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
It seems intuitive, math cannot handle the equations to go back in time and space if we do not know the limits of space.
Click to expand...
How many equations would there be?
Click to expand...
What unknowns are you talking about? There’s plenty to choose from, really. We have developed math to go back to the early universe, but there’s limits to computational powers. And there’d probably be as many equations now as there are then.
 
jdwood983

I want to thank you for your helpful answers.

Some of the unknowns would be the actual size of the universe now.

Another unknown would be the dark matter and energy.

I need time to reflect on your answers.

Thanks!!!

It would be really helpful if you would give me those unknowns.

Thanks!!!
 
We can only know (really estimate) the size of the observable universe. We cannot say anything about what objects lie beyond the observable universe edge that have not had the time to send any light our way–these objects are said to be causally disconnected from us, where as objects within our observable universe are causally connected to us.

As for dark matter & dark energy, the two play a role in the development of big bang theories. Dark matter was introduced to resolve the question of “where is the missing mass?” Dark energy was introduced to resolve the question of “how is the universe’s expansion accelerating?” Neither material has been directly observed, but numerous indirect observations have come about. And despite the indirect observations, there’s many astrophysicists who deny the existence of both and use modified gravity theories to explain the two questions I wrote in quotes here.
 
How can math be said to handly such uncertainty?

It seems unscientific.

thanks jdwood983
 
Jim_Baur said:
How can math be said to handly such uncertainty?

It seems unscientific.

thanks jdwood983
Click to expand...
Haha science is ripe with uncertainty. Science is all about making assumptions to reduce the complexity of equations and make them more manageable. Every equation involving the big bang theory starts with the assumptions that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. The assumptions save untold amounts of time in doing the equations, but of course mean the results are only as good as the assumptions.

Science is all about managing uncertainty. That I think would be a good way to put it. Your always going to have uncertainty and what you try and do is either limit that uncertainty or calculate it so you know how much it throws off your calculations approximately. In engineering we get an idea of how much uncertainty there is in a calculation and then attribute a safety factor based on that.
 
I am not here to argue.
I am here to learn.

Nate13, in this area of math, physics and astronomy, how much actual experience do you have?

I mean this lovingly, how much of the math have you actually worked?

It seems to me, not to repeat myself, that the amount of variables are quasi-infinite.

I am only here to learn.
Thank you!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top