BBC Focus Magazine

[The Beige Avenger]

http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html

Basically, as the universe expands, time is converted into space, and mass is converted into length. As the universe contracts, the opposite occurs.

Ooh.... I quite like it!! If it does what it claims to do...

It's nice to hear the alternatives and I hope it's got some legs on it... it's good to see that folks aren't satisfied with the current best guess at what's going on out there.

[M Paul Lloyd]

A splendid find Mr.A and yes nice to read an alternative to what is a rather over complicated explanation of how the universe came to be.

[Shadowwolf]

Apparently there are some issues with Mr Wu's paper and it may not be much of an alternate after all, this lady nicely goes through the issues here: http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/.

There are some other contenders described here however they seem to be a few years away in capability to measure or not really discernible at all which does leave them a bit wanting, anyhoo more here: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang/article_view?searchterm=big%20bang&b_start:int=3.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Well the alternatives all have flaws, that much is certain, which is fine because so does big bang theory, and well, I don't really see anything in any of the alternatives that is anymore difficult to accept than the principle of inflation which I think is quite simply illogical.

I would say, its all potentially possible but none of it certain.

[Healerman]

Inflation and dark matter seem to me to be fixes designed to make the universe fit the theory. It's like papering over the cracks. Dark energy is at least non-commital - the universe seems to accelerating and something must be driving it.

This idea does not seem to be any more far-fetched than the current consensus. The stability of the the values of G and c across the entire life of the universe have been questioned before, perhaps with good reason. I can't say, I don't have the maths for it, but the current model does seem to be increasingly clumsy and it is perhaps time for a more 'elegant' theory to emerge.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I'm pushing my own theory that redshift and its apparent increase with distance is an illusion and not the result of accelerating regression but is the result of a 'fog' of large non stellar objects (call it dark matter if you like) extending the wavelength of light towards the red end of the spectrum, the greater the distance the greater the distortion.
Thus the universe is not expanding nor at an accelerated rate which means no need for dark energy or inflation, or indeed a great deal of the other incredibly complicated stuff.

I accept that I may well be hopelessly wrong and of course I cannot explain where the universe actually came from either but I do not think it any less unbelievable than the science behind current big bang theory.
an-easy-guide-to-big-bang-theory-t7.html

[The Beige Avenger]

It appears it has no legs

[Shadowwolf]

I accept that I may well be hopelessly wrong and of course I cannot explain where the universe actually came from either but I do not think it any less unbelievable than the science behind current big bang theory.

There does appear to be some very fundamental misunderstandings here about what the Big Bang theory is and what it is not. One thing it is not is an explanation of where the universe came from, it makes no claims in that area it is solely an explanation of how the verse developed from a specific point.

The Big Bang theory has verified experimental and observational evidence behind a good deal of it, it has very sound underpinnings which is why it is the current best theory at explaining the development of the verse. It is not some fuzzy abstract notion or a lone standing mathematical construct, there is evidence. Your hypotheses that redshift is an illusion is in comparison, honestly much less believable because it is merely an hypotheses, there is no evidence that it is an illusion and that is not enough to trump actual observation. Now it might be an illusion but until there is actual evidence to support that hypotheses then it can in no way be considered a strike against the theory. I would also add that finding a fault with one element of a theory does not make the entire thing automatically wrong or disappear it. There is a common misunderstanding that if one little bit can be knocked out of a scientific theory then the whole edifice will come tumbling down, so all effort is focused on knocking out that one little bit, and usually with little thought for advancing an alternate explanation that covers the observations and data better.

Lastly it must be pointed out that the Bang is the current best accepted theory, no one or very few think that it's a done deal, case closed and tis heresy to speak otherwise. Mr Wu for instance was not disagreed with - in the article I linked - because he was a Bang naysayer but because he has apparently made some mistakes, which is possible even if his field was in physics. The Bang like all scientific theories will be refined as more information becomes available, it may get past the incredibly misleading name it has been saddled with and it may get past misunderstandings about its history, it may even be overturned should a much better candidate come along. However that will only happen when something more scientifically tangible than hypotheses and a desire for something more simple or elegant comes along. So far that has not happened.

[M Paul Lloyd]

But, it surely does no harm to poke it with sticks at regular intervals to see if it will burst?

I used to like the big bang theory, it seemed to nicely explain everything as we understood it forty years ago, but as it evolved so other theories had to be brought into play to keep it working and when inflation was invented (and there is no other word for it, it really was just dreamed up with no experimental pretext) to plug a staggering hole in the need for the universe to have expanded from being a few metres across to 98% of its current size in less than a blink of an eye. This was just too much for me to grasp and I really fell out of love with it, and have yet to see anything that makes me feel any less uneasy about it.

Sorry, but in this matter I'm a stubborn ludite.

[Shadowwolf]

But, it surely does no harm to poke it with sticks at regular intervals to see if it will burst?

If there is good reason then of course not.

Btw inflation was not just invented on a whim, "hey Bob, this theory is kinda boring, hey let's jazz it up some, we can call it inflation or somethin," it was the label applied to what the data appears to suggest happened. Far as I know the CMB certainly points towards inflation being so.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Well no it wasn't actually Bob but a chap called Guth (if memory serves?) who came up with Inflation as a modification of the conventional big bang theory back 1981 because the observed universe did not match the theory of expansion from a common point over the accepted age of the universe.

In other words it is too big for its age.

Inflation theory suggests the universe experienced a period of wildly dramatic expansion, that breaks all the accepted laws of physics, immediatley after the Big Bang. However breaking all the accpeted laws of physics is ok if you can find a way around it to-wit the subsequent presence of a specific type of gravitational radiation ripples in the fabric of space-time. These are especially hard to detect , well actually no-one has managed to do so yet, but theorectically they should exist, its just a matter of time really.
Thing is a theoretical phenomenon called symmetry breaking can also (in theory) produce gravitational radiation. So I am doubtful that discovering this type of radiationwould necessarily provide the conclusive evidence for inflation theory that was once was thought to be a certainty.

[FrennyD]

I am not really sure if what theory will I believe because I am really confused. Science and religion is fightin in my mind when it comes to creation. There have been controversies between science and religion. The Grand Design talks about some of these. Hawking believes that gravity is what made it so the universe might be created. He believes no The Lord might be a part of this. People who disagree with Hawking say science, being limited by laws of nature such as gravity, is an inadequate approach to comprehending the role of God in the galaxy.

[The Beige Avenger]

Welcome to the forum...

I recommend watching this talk by Lawrence Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Shadowwolf]

Hullo and would it be welcome back? Handle looks familiar you see.

I am not really sure if what theory will I believe because I am really confused.

Currently the theory best known as the Big Bang is the best explanation and the one best backed by current evidence as to the evolution of our Verse. It is by no means the last word or some incontrovertible fact forever set in stone, it is just the current best explanation that may get more refined or may be overturned should something better come along. There are other contenders but so far these have been less able to fit the existing data or we are currently not able to put them to the test and must wait a few years and see. What the Big Bang is not is a theory that explains the origins of the Verse, it has nothing to say about what went before or how it started. Much like Evolution explains the development of life on this planet but not how life actually began in the first place.

There have been controversies between science and religion.

True, but most if not all of these so called controversies have been science saying, "look we've discovered how this works or why this came to be." Explanations that also inherently contradicted one or more groups particular explanation and / or removed the necessity for their deity from that arena. These folks usually don't like that and respond by trying to stamp out the science, distort it in some manner or claim that science is just for the little things like explaining how light bulbs work and they do the really important big stuff. Science is really just doing it's job whilst the religious for some reason feel a constant need to be striking back on the defensive.

The Grand Design talks about some of these. Hawking believes that gravity is what made it so the universe might be created. He believes no The Lord might be a part of this.

What Hawking did was say that the development of the universe needs no operator by feat of supernatural magic to light the touch-paper, like Evolution it works perfectly well without anyone or thing in a driving seat. Nor is there evidence or reason to place anyone or thing at the start so it is more parsimonious to assume that there is none until such a time as evidence says otherwise. Of course this position inherently denies certain groups as absolutely incorrect, those such as the Greek Pantheon, the Norse gods or Abrahamic literalists. What struck me as most interesting was how Hawking has made his position known and then a sudden rush of believers practically falling over each other to make their castigations, gaps and excuses known, the gallop into defensive mode merely because Hawking had an opinion that did not jibe with their personal position; bit odd if you ask me.

People who disagree with Hawking say science, being limited by laws of nature such as gravity, is an inadequate approach to comprehending the role of God in the galaxy.

They may disagree and publicly if they wish, but if they want to be taken seriously they will have to come up with a far better justification than picking up their deity and simply asserting that it's somehow beyond science. That is tantamount to saying that their comprehension for their chosen one is based on whatever make believe takes their fancy. You also often see this beyond science stunt deployed when it bursts some favoured bubble like psychics, dowsing or astrology, as soon as it fails it suddenly is beyond science, it's a protective mechanism for the inherently false.

[Isee]

Sorry for butting into a subject i find deeply fascinating but am not very good at, but just wanted to ask two things

According to the theory C will have varying speed right? But one comment says that c has been uncahnged for 6billion years. I was thinking, is it possible that the speed of c changing is not measurable as it also changes our (and that of any tools we currently employ) perception of time accordingly?

Second subject was inflating universe and dark matter.
Why is it so hard to explain the universe expnading? Afterall gas will expand until it fills the container and presumably gas molecules have a gravity too, yet it doesn't stop gas expanding. Is it not possible to extrapolate this to Universe size?

Again, this probably looks like Vicky Pollard speaking out at a MENSA convention, but thought I'd chip in nevertheless.

[Shadowwolf]

I was thinking, is it possible that the speed of c changing is not measurable as it also changes our (and that of any tools we currently employ) perception of time accordingly?

Okay The Beige one probably knows better but until he corrects me, 'c' is a constant but the value of that changes depending on the medium it is passing through as best I recall, hence that value is lower in glass than in space. That constant has been unchanged since the beginning which is much more than six billion years ago, certainly there is no reason for a sudden change at that point. As to the other point, well initially I would say that the premise appears redundant, if we cannot measure it and cannot perceive a change it seems in effect no different from not changing at all.

[Isee]

i am aware of variations of speed depending on the medium it travels in ofc.

but just because we cannot (yet) percieve it, surely it's no reason to say that it is inconsequential. My dog cannot percieve my financial wellbeing as long as it gets something to eat, but that doesn't mean it's unaffected by it.

[Shadowwolf]

True but your initial words seem to imply something that we cannot perceive a change in, unlike your canine example.

...is it possible that the speed of c changing is not measurable as it also changes our (and that of any tools we currently employ) perception of time accordingly?

I take this - and I may be mistaken - to suggest an unknowable quantity that would appear to exert no appreciable change upon us or our perception that we can be aware of, for as it changes it alters our perception along with it to appear as though nothing has changed. Hence it would initially appear to me to be indistinguishable from nothing at all changing and therefore of no apparent consequence.

It was like another example prior to the Big Wipe, a poster was wondering if there could be another dimension / universe to our own but one that was undetectable and exerted no influence on ours, one that could never be detected. It is possible but a never detectable extra dimension / universe is no different to there being no extra dimension / universe at all as far as we are realistically concerned.

Perhaps I'm getting the two confused but that's how it kind of looks to me at the moment

[Isee]

Heheh this is getting very philosophical, but I was not suggesting it has no effect on us.
I was suggesting that it does have an effect, but we cannot measure the change and the change we do not see we do not associate with something we are being affected by, like the universe expanding

[The Beige Avenger]

Sticking to things that are "known"...

c is a constant value, from its definition it is the speed of light in a vacuum. It is determined by properties of the space through which the photon travels which is better appreciated by taking the wave view in that a wave requires a medium through which it propagates (in this case... a vacuum!) so properties of the medium called permittivity / permeability (which are constant for a vacuum) determine the speed of propagation of an EM wave through the medium. It's a bit of a (poorly) condensed explanation but the words are there to look up if you like.

Now, these properties do change.... in an earlier universe, light travelled a lot slower.... but that was not necessarily the maximum possible velocity in that universe as it is in ours; in certain (usually dense) media, particles of mass can travel faster than photons.

Our perception of time is largely due to simple nature and how we are wired... the speed of light matters not for Earthly things that don't know about it yet the experience the same time as us; they may however, perceive it entirely differently just like how they perceive their existence differently from us.

In terms of measurements of time, they are now defined by relation to radioactive decay i.e. not the speed of light.

I agree that in a space, whose properties are all changing infinitesimally and constantly, measurements would require a bit of genius I'm severely lacking in... I mean, how to measure length if the length of your measuring device is changing at the same rate as the space it's within is changing.