The Big Bang

NoamChomsky · #1 01-26-2006, 04:33 AM

So, (and please correct me in the many areas of my facts that are certain to be fuzzy) the universe was formed around 20 billion years ago (according to the modern big bang theory).

There are super clusters of galaxies that appear to have taken 100+ billion years to form.

Also, the universe appears to be very clumpy, not smoothe as your theory indicates.

How does the Big Bang model account for these inconsistances?

amirite · #2 01-26-2006, 04:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There are super clusters of galaxies that appear to have taken 100+ billion years to form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source please.

bunny · #3 01-26-2006, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So, (and please correct me in the many areas of my facts that are certain to be fuzzy) the universe was formed around 20 billion years ago (according to the modern big bang theory).

There are super clusters of galaxies that appear to have taken 100+ billion years to form.

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent heard this before and it seems dubious to me. I know that there are inconsistencies if you assume that the universe has been expanding at a constant or near-constant rate. Perhaps this is what you have heard mentioned as the problem (?) My understanding of the most popular model posits a period of super-rapid expansion early in the universe's life. By including this inflationary period in the model I believe these discrepancies are accounted for.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the universe appears to be very clumpy, not smoothe as your theory indicates.

How does the Big Bang model account for these inconsistances?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think the big bang theory gives any indication that the universe should be "smooth". This was an early objection to the big bang theory but it was never really an issue. Given the big bang is presumed to have begun as an infinitesimal point, quantum effects would certainly ensure that there were inconsistencies ealy in the universe's life. Once the expansion was well underway, these early inconsistencies would lead to the clumping of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters you are referring to.

Metric · #4 01-26-2006, 10:37 AM

If you want to take shots at the consistency of standard cosmology, there are some big targets. These, however, are not them.

NoamChomsky · #5 01-26-2006, 10:59 AM

source = The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric J. Lerner.

NoamChomsky · #6 01-26-2006, 11:03 AM

The reason that cosmologists (big bang fans) believe that the universe should be smoothe I believe is because the cosmic background radiation is smooth to 1 part in 100,000.

There are certainly huge superclusters of galaxies that could not have been formed by gravity alone. I believe (but am out on a limb here) this is where string theory (talk about dubious) comes into play. That is just a guess.

NoamChomsky · #7 01-26-2006, 11:05 AM

:

The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R.

Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were

ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light years long

and 100 million light years thick, stretching out about a billion

light years, and separated by voids about 300 million light years

across.(1) These structures are much too big for the Big Bang

theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are suppose to

be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge

complex, but the age of the universe is suppose to be somewhere

between 10 and 20 billion years.

"

http://www.abbottloop.org/alconweb/i_c_r/bigbang.htm

Zygote · #8 01-26-2006, 11:39 AM

how bout some scientific data and not the spewings of a known whackjob creationist?

Eratosthenes · #9 01-26-2006, 01:20 PM

If you are interested in the answers to these and similar questions about cosmology, then read The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. Greene is the guy the did the Elegant Universe series on PBS. It is a pretty watered-down (no math) explanation of string theory and its relatives. It goes into some detail about the clumpiness of the universe and how that happened without a violation of the 2nd law.

This clumpiness question was very vexing to physicists about 20 years ago. If you've read the 1st edition of A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking (known to Homer Simpson as "the wheelchair guy"), you've noticed that he was pretty worried about the clumpiness of the universe and how that arose from the big bang. These bits may be edited in later editions.

The thing about science is that it is a work in progress. The things that were mysterious and troubling 20 years ago are more understood today.

On the other hand, it could be elephants all the way down.

Borodog · #10 01-26-2006, 01:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So, (and please correct me in the many areas of my facts that are certain to be fuzzy) the universe was formed around 20 billion years ago (according to the modern big bang theory).

There are super clusters of galaxies that appear to have taken 100+ billion years to form.

Also, the universe appears to be very clumpy, not smoothe as your theory indicates.

How does the Big Bang model account for these inconsistances?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get your comsology from better sources.