What Came Before The Big Bang? Interpreting Asymmetry In Early Universe

Zeuzzz

Banned
Zeuzzz
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
5,211
Stumbled across this recent article, which seems to be pushing back the age of the universe even further than Big Bang creation.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081216131106.htm
Science News

What Came Before The Big Bang? Interpreting Asymmetry In Early Universe

ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) — The Big Bang is widely considered to have obliterated any trace of what came before. Now, astrophysicists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) think that their new theoretical interpretation of an imprint from the earliest stages of the universe may also shed light on what came before.[....]

But the perturbation that the researchers introduced may also offer the first glimpse at what came before the Big Bang, because it could be an imprint inherited from the time before inflation. "All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally," Kamionkowski says. "If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil."

The study appears December 16 in the journal Physical Review D. It was supported by the Department of Energy and by Caltech's Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology and Physics.
Click to expand...


What the hell are they talking about? Before the big bang. Jeez. Isn't that blasphemy?

Seems like a bit more big bang fairy dust to me. Maybe the big bang originated from a multiversal M-theoretical supersymetric grand unified field which can be expressed via the quantization of both space and time by quantum loop gravity creating a big bounce gigaflipithingy.

"It's a certified anomaly," Kamionkowski remarks. "But since inflation seems to do so well with everything else, it seems premature to discard the theory." Instead, the team worked with the theory in their math addressing the asymmetry.
Click to expand...


Just keep adding complex theories to explain the conflicting observations, without ever reconsidering the theory they are predicated on :rolleyes:

Just one more falsifying observation to add to the ever increasing list.

The study appears December 16 in the journal Physical Review D. It was supported by the Department of Energy and by Caltech's Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology and Physics.

If anyone can access it, that would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Disney/frames.html
COSMOLOGY IN PERSPECTIVE

Of course we would all love to know of the fate of the Universe, just as we'd love to know if God exists. If we expect science to provide the answers though, we may have to be very patient - and literally wait for eternity. Alas professional cosmologists cannot afford to wait that long. For that reason the word `cosmologist' should be expunged from the scientific dictionary and returned to the priesthood where it properly belongs.

I'm not suggesting that cosmology itself should be abandoned. Mostly by accident it has made some fascinating, if faltering progress over the centuries. And if we are patient and build our instruments to explore the Universe in all the crevices of parameter space, new clues will surely come to hand, as they have in the past, largely by accident. But we should not spend too many of our astronomical resources in trying to answer grandiose questions which may, in all probability, be unanswerable. For instance we must not build the Next Generation Space Telescope as if it was solely a cosmological machine. We should only do that if we are confident of converging on ``the truth''. If we build it to look through many windows we may yet find the surprising clues which lead us off on a new path along the way.

Above all we must not overclaim for this fascinating subject which, it can be argued, is not a proper science at all. Rutherford for instance said ``Don't let me hear anyone use the word `Universe' in my department''. Shouldn't we scientists be saying something like this to the general public:

``It is not likely that we primates gazing through bits of glass for a century or two will dissemble the architecture and history of infinity. But if we don't try we won't get anywhere. Therefore we professionals do the best we can to fit the odd clues we have into some kind of plausible story. That is how science works, and that is the spirit in which our cosmological speculations should be treated. Don't be impressed by our complex machines or our arcane mathematics. They have been used to build plausible cosmic stories before - which we had to discard afterwards in the face of improving evidence. The likelihood must be that such revisions will have to occur again and again and again.''

I apologise for such a highly opinionated attack, but it does appear to me that the pendulum has swung much too far the other way. Surely the `burden of proof' ought to rest squarely on the proponents of what will always be a fascinating but suspect subject.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The link in the above post is a bit brief, the full publication can be read here: The Case Against Cosmology General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 32, Number 6, June 2000 , pp. 1125-1134(10) by MJ Disney - 2000 - Cited by 24 -
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
If anyone can access it, that would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

You can access it yourself:

http://arxiv.org/multi?group=grp_physics&/find=Search

As for "before the Big Bang", Kamionkowski is an astrophysicist, and by "Big Bang" he means reheating (the end of inflation) - which is not a singularity.

"Conflicting observations" is a wild exaggeration. There are some anomalies in the data which are unlikely at about the 1% level if inflation lasted for a very "long" time. If it didn't, they are to be expected. Even if it did, there's a LOT of data, and if you look at enough of it you're guaranteed to find something like that. Not to say this isn't interesting - it is - but it's probably not a signal of anything really new.

On the whole, standard inflation does an exceptionally good job explaining observations. Cosmology has become a precision science - in fact it's that precision which allowed this paper to even be written, because without a determination of cosmological parameters down to about 1% error it would be impossible to even notice this anomaly.
 
sol invictus said:
As for "before the Big Bang", Kamionkowski is an astrophysicist, and by "Big Bang" he means reheating (the end of inflation) - which is not a singularity.
Click to expand...


And?

"Conflicting observations" is a wild exaggeration.
Click to expand...


:) I dont think so.

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.10.htm
This is the first newsletter of the post-CCC2 epoch, and was consequently delayed while we attended to the conference. We have had our hands full over the past several months! During this time, it seems that an increasing proportion of published papers in astrophysics is resorting to the terms “anomalous,” “peculiar," “puzzling,” “problem” and “difficult to explain in terms of the model.”
Click to expand...


...snip..."Microwave Background

Title: No large-angle correlations on the non-Galactic microwave sky.
Authors: Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz, and Glenn D. Starkman.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3767

Title: Statistical and systematical errors in cosmic microwave background maps.
Authors: Hao Liu and Ti-Pei Li.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4493

Title: Large Scale Plane-Mirroring in the Cosmic Microwave Background WMAP5 Maps.
Authors: V.G. Gurzadyan, A.A. Starobinsky, T. Ghahramanyan, A.L. Kashin, H. Khachatryan, H. Kuloghliyan, D. Vetrugno, and G. Yegorian.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3652


Nucleosynthesis

Title: The Puzzling origin of the 6Li plateau.
Authors: Carmelo Evoli, Stefania Salvadori, and Andrea Ferrara.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4184

Title: A Bitter Pill: The Primordial Lithium problem.
Authors: Richard H. Cyburt, Brian D. Fields, and Keith A. Olive.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2818


Expansion

Title: Hubble’s Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe.
Authors: A.K.T. Assis, M.C.D. Neves, and D.S.L. Soares.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4481

Title: Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual problems of the Cosmological Physics.
Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0153


Quasars

Title: The transverse proximity effect in the z~2 Lyman-alpha forest suggest QSO episodic lifetimes of ~1 Myr.
Authors: David Kirkman and David Tytler.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.2277

Title: The Hubble diagram of high redshift objects, QSOs and AGNs.
Authors: C. E. Navia, C. R. A. Augusto, K. H. Tsui.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0590


Size Evolution anomalies

Title: The dramatic size evolution of elliptical galaxies and the quasar feedback.
Authors: L. Fan, A. Lapi, G. De Zotti, and L. Danese.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4574

Title: Size evolution of the most massive galaxies at 1.7<z<3 from GOODS NICMOS survey imaging.
Authors: Fernando Buitrago et al.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4141

Title: Red Nuggets at z~1.5: Compact passive galaxies and the formation of the Kormendy relation.
Authors: Ivana Damjanov et al..
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1744

Title: Recent Structural Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies: Size Growth from z = 1 to z = 0.
Authors: Arjen van der Wel et al.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0077"


On the whole, standard inflation does an exceptionally good job explaining observations. Cosmology has become a precision science - in fact it's that precision which allowed this paper to even be written, because without a determination of cosmological parameters down to about 1% error it would be impossible to even notice this anomaly.
Click to expand...


It does an exceptionally good job at explaining some observations, and falls flat on its face in explaining others. You choose the confirmatory ones, I choose the conflictory ones. Both are equally as valid, though one has the model of the entire universe precariously balanced atop its shoulders.

You presume here that the cosmological parameters are correct and they are revealing a real anomaly, whereas some would say that the only reason the anomaly has arrisen in due to errors in our current models of the cosmological parameters in the first place. See some of the papers above. Especially Assis's.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
And?
Click to expand...

You asked whether it was "blashphemy". It's not at all - it's only the slightest bit non-standard.

:) I dont think so.
Click to expand...

I know you don't.

Unfortunately your opinion is utterly worthless, because you don't understand even basic physics, let alone cosmology, you're a proven liar, and you seem to subscribe to every bit of vaguely scientific sounding woo that comes your way so long as it's wrong.

And moreover you did a terrible job (if it was you) of cherrypicking those references - most of them are further evidence for the standard picture, and the rest are mostly fringe nonsense.

That will be my last post in response to you.
 
sol invictus said:
Unfortunately your opinion is utterly worthless, because you don't understand even basic physics, let alone cosmology, you're a proven liar, and you seem to subscribe to every bit of vaguely scientific sounding woo that comes your way so long as it's wrong.
Click to expand...


Why thankyou :D Any thing you forgot?

Just trying to bridge the gap between the 'mainstream' cosmologists and the alternative cosmologists. Looks like you fell at the first hurdle. Straight into a plethora of unsubstantiaed accusations. 1, 0.

And moreover you did a terrible job (if it was you) of cherrypicking those references - most of them are further evidence for the standard picture, and the rest are mostly fringe nonsense.
Click to expand...


No, its wasn't me, it was Eric Lerner and Hilton Ratcliffe who conducted a review of the recent literature over the past months, which you would know if you had read the link that I supplied. But I guess that page is just too wooooo-wooo to even look at for a second. Right?

That will be my last post in response to you.
Click to expand...


I somehow doubt it.

How many times have you said this?
 
Last edited:
Zeuzz,
The article in the OP is entirely about inflation and imprints that it may have left in the CMB.
Inflation is after the Big Bang. I agree with sol. Marc Kamionkowski comment ("It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang") is really talking about reheating (the end of inflation).

ETA: From the Wikipedia article on the big bang timeline
All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. As of today no accelerator experiments probe energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any insight into the period. All proposed scenarios differ radically, some examples being: the Hartle-Hawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these are mutually compatible, while others are not.
Click to expand...
The article is about inflation which is between 10–36 seconds and 10–32 seconds after the Big Bang.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
The link in the above post is a bit brief, the full publication can be read here: The Case Against Cosmology General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 32, Number 6, June 2000 , pp. 1125-1134(10) by MJ Disney - 2000 - Cited by 24 -
Click to expand...
This paper by MJ Disney has already been dicussed in this forum, e.g. starting with this post in Big Bang - Woo or Not. It is a list of difficulties with cosmology in general (not only Big Bang cosmology). the list is a bit mixed - some points are obvious, some well known, others have been overtaken by time (8 years is a short time in astomony these days!).
Disney's paper is here in arxiv in case anyone is interested.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.10.htm
...snip of Zeuzzz's "snip"...
You presume here that the cosmological parameters are correct and they are revealing a real anomaly, whereas some would say that the only reason the anomaly has arrisen in due to errors in our current models of the cosmological parameters in the first place. See some of the papers above. Especially Assis's.
Click to expand...
A small point - you should assume that readers of the forum are able to follow links and read the web page. There is no need to copy a large part of the web page into a posting.

I am not sure why Assis's conference paper should impress you. It is just a historical perspective on Hubble:
We analyze Hubble's approach to cosmology. In 1929 he accepted a finite expanding universe in order to explain the redshifts of distant galaxies. Later on he turned to an infinite stationary universe due to observational constraints. We show, by quoting his works, that he remained cautiously against the big bang until the end of his life.
Click to expand...
Someone could probably write a paper stating Einstein "remained cautiously against quantum mechanics until the end of his life". What would be the point? A personal opinion is not how scientific theories are confirmed or accepted.

Interesting thought about the three papers on the microwave background: If the middle paper is correct then should there be doubts about the correctness of the other two (or for that matter any paper on the CMB)?
From it's abstract: "These errors can contribute to large-scale anomalies detected in WMAP maps and distort the angular power spectrum as well. It is needed to remake temperature maps from original WMAP differential data with modified map-making procedure to avoid observation-dependent noise and systematic distortion in recovered maps."
 
"Before the Big Bang" is like saying "the other side of the North Pole".
 
Reality Check said:
The article is about inflation which is between 10–36 seconds and 10–32 seconds after the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


:D Oh terribly sorry, I was a whole 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds out.

I really do wonder how they can be certain of such miniscule time scales that happened so long ago. Infact so long ago it was at the point that time itself started. Surely as time goes back uncertainty in our extrapolation of various theories increases, which leaves me highly dubious of values this precise being attributed to something this long ago. Its not as if someone was able to stand outside the big bang with a stopwatch and time it. We just extrapolate theories and laws to their limit and hope that they hold true at the very extremes. In reality, in such extreme conditions, its highly unlikely they will. But I dont have any suggestions for how they will behave under such condition. Infact I dont even belive in the Big Bang in the first place due to various causality arguments. So, rant over.
 
Zeuzzz said:
:D Oh terribly sorry, I was a whole 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds out.

I really do wonder how they can be certain of such miniscule time scales that happened so long ago. Infact so long ago it was at the point that time itself started. Surely as time goes back uncertainty in our extrapolation of various theories increases, which leaves me highly dubious of values this precise being attributed to something this long ago. Its not as if someone was able to stand outside the big bang with a stopwatch and time it. We just extrapolate theories and laws to their limit and hope that they hold true at the very extremes. In reality, in such extreme conditions, its highly unlikely they will. But I dont have any suggestions for how they will behave under such condition. Infact I dont even belive in the Big Bang in the first place due to various causality arguments. So, rant over.
Click to expand...

Cosmologists are actually not sure of the time of the inflationary period. You missed that that the "10–36 seconds and 10–32 seconds after the Big Bang" was actually a range for the start of the inflation and that the first sentence in the description of the inflationary epoch is "The temperature, and therefore the time, at which cosmic inflation occurs is not known for certain.".

Another rant for everyone:
It is really confusing that Big Bang theory is actually not about the Big Bang! It should be renamed.
 
There was no big bang

The theory of the big bang is an irrational theory that sits on two other irrational theories. So the answer is that there was no big bang. That we still have to put up with this ludicrous theory is a stunning testament to the power of stolen-money financing to screw up any damn thing at all.
 
GMB said:
The theory of the big bang is an irrational theory that sits on two other irrational theories. So the answer is that there was no big bang. That we still have to put up with this ludicrous theory is a stunning testament to the power of stolen-money financing to screw up any damn thing at all.
Click to expand...
The theory of the big bang is a rational theory that sits on a large body of physical evidence. So the answer is that there was a big bang. That we still have to put up with ludicrous remarks is a stunning testament to the power of ignorance.
 
Make an argument or go away. Stop lying and being irrational. Stop spamming.
 
GMB said:
Make an argument or go away. Stop lying and being irrational. Stop spamming.
Click to expand...

Assuming that this is directed at me - you are triply wrong:
  1. I an not lying.
  2. I am not being irrational.
  3. I am not spamming.
My argument is the big bang has a great deal of physical evidence and a nice theory to support it. IMHO inflation is doubtful but that is a personal opinion not supported by any evidence.


You need to tell us what the "two other irrational theories" are.
Dark matter is a physically observed fact (see my signature).
Dark energy is an observed fact from supernovae and the cosmic microwave background (along with a couple of supporting observations).
 
Reality Check said:
[/LIST]My argument is the big bang has a great deal of physical evidence and a nice theory to support it.
Click to expand...

No thats not right. The theory is ludicrous and the evidence isn't there. What is usually referred to as evidence is entirely circular. The two theories that it is based on that are wrong are special relativity and the Hubble doctrine. Which is an absolutist doctrine that pretends that there is but one source of redshift and no others and once this pretense topples then so does this hubble doctrine and the big bang with it.
 
GMB said:
No thats not right. The theory is ludicrous and the evidence isn't there. What is usually referred to as evidence is entirely circular. The two theories that it is based on that are wrong are special relativity and the Hubble doctrine. Which is an absolutist doctrine that pretends that there is but one source of redshift and no others and once this pretense topples then so does this hubble doctrine and the big bang with it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can expand on your "evidence is entirely circular" statement.
For example how do the distances determined from standard candles depend on the redshift or the Hubble constant?

There are several sources of redshift: doppler, relativistic doppler, gravitational and the expansion of space. All astronomers know this.

So no collapse of the hubble doctrine and the big bang with it.
 
GMB said:
The theory of the big bang is an irrational theory that sits on two other irrational theories. So the answer is that there was no big bang. That we still have to put up with this ludicrous theory is a stunning testament to the power of stolen-money financing to screw up any damn thing at all.
Click to expand...

Okey dokey.

Sure.
 
GMB said:
No thats not right. The theory is ludicrous and the evidence isn't there. What is usually referred to as evidence is entirely circular. The two theories that it is based on that are wrong are special relativity and the Hubble doctrine. Which is an absolutist doctrine that pretends that there is but one source of redshift and no others and once this pretense topples then so does this hubble doctrine and the big bang with it.
Click to expand...

Oh my, this isn't some form of plasma cosmology is it?

there are real problems with the alternative red shift theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom