Pow! Zap! (Big) Bang?! (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 01:00 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Big Bang:
> 
> There has been some discussion on the Big Bang, and I know there are a couple of supporters for it, so here are my top reasons for not supporting it, and we can argue about it :P 
> 
> The beginning
>

• It violates the laws of physics, requiring that something came from nothing. -No... not really. All BBT's begin with a quantum singularity where all energy and mass in the universe existed at a single point. The laws of physics did not exist at this juncture; only after expansion. Think of it the same way that evolution describes life--only after life got here. It has no explanatory power before life's genesis. ->
• If there were nothing by hydrogen and helium, what was in the center of the universe to cause enough gravity to condense it all down to a single point of super-dense material. This violates the laws of gravity.-No it doesn't. Even excepting the point that physical laws didn't exist at the singularity, Black Holes do the same thing on a smaller scale: a single teaspoon of a neutron star would have the same mass as our Sun. When you break these particles into their components down into high-energy states, you don't have mass at all in a traditional sense. ->
• If it exploded, the resulting matter would travel in a straight line through the vacuum at tremendous speeds, with each subsequent second put particles further beyond the gravitational effects of neighboring particles. Thus, the universe would not have formed as all matter would still be traveling in a straight line.-The only way it would be a straight line, is if you knew the shape--which you couldn't because it was in a quantum superposition. In that moment, just before expansion, it was simultaneously EVERY possible shape in the universe. ->
• Gas(helium and hydrogen) expand in a vacuum, not contract. Thus stars could not have formed from helium and hydrogen.-Vacuum was formed after all the bits of material stopped being bigger than the space they were expanding in. In the beginning, it was like having 2 cups of water in a 1 cup container. Until the container increased to a large enough size, you wouldn't have vacuum at all. There was also a variation in temperatures; the temperatures that were on average lower were where quantum particles started to clump. Hydrogen and helium would begin forming and fusing after they had already "found" each other as quantum particles. ->
• CERN experiments have shown that matter and anti-matter when created immediately destroy each other. Thus, if matter and anti-matter where created in the big bang, the resulting matter would have been immediately destroyed. 
>


> -This is assuming that antimatter is always created at the exact same moment with the exact same quantities of matter. Under standard models, those universes are predicted, but it simply is not the universe we live in. -> The Middle, supposing the beginning didn't complicate things enough..
>

• There are gaps that helium and hydrogen can not cross when changing to other elements. Thus, exploding stars, no matter how many times they exploded, could not create the heavier elements from hydrogen and helium.-The only problem is that since we're talking about 1 and 2-proton atoms, you have all the tools you ever need to build all elements. The numbers 1 and 2 are all that's needed to create every conceivable number, but hell, you can do that with just 1. Couple that with radioactive decay; you have plenty of ways to get every element we know of. You're also assuming that only H gets fused, then only He gets fused. Sometimes an H gets fused to an He creating Li. ->
• Stars would have to go nova/super-nova at an incredible rate in order for them to create the observed mass of the universe. We have not observed this high rate of nova's, even when looking as far back into the past as we can.-Stars didn't create the mass. They simply altered its components. I would like to see more about this argument however. ->
• There is no 'empty center of the universe' which would be required for the BBT to be true.-The size if the universe is infinite. Aside from that, if, using your own scenario--the universe shot out as a straight line--there would never be a center.->
• As stated in the first list, since explosions in a vacuum lead to straight line trajectories, highly organised elliptical orbits could not form.-The crab nebula destroys this concept of a straight-line trajectory being the only possibility in vacuum. ->
• BBT requires that older stars have a different physical composition, which does not fit the observed data, particularly in the mass:heavy element ratio.-This part would only be an issue if you're talking about the earliest stars we can find. Otherwise I would say we're seeing what would be expected after 13Bn years of evolution. -(final section answered in a "Part 2")

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"