A little Space for the Aviation and Space Forum: Why Big Bang/Dark Energy/Dark Matter?

[FigureFive]

This week's Nobel prize announcement got me thinking again about something that has bugged me for a long time. Namely, why aren't we more skeptical of our current theories of the the universe?

This will be long, most of you will pass. Perhaps those with knowledge and who share my interest in cosmology, theoretical physics and space in general will join in.

So, Hubble discovers that the universe is expanding, conclusion: everything came from an infinitesimally small point smaller than an atom (?) and blew out into everything we see now in the Big Bang. Seems like a stretch but it's pretty much settled these days that that's how things started.

Using the observed expansion we measure back and deduce the universe is on the order of 13 billion years old, give or take. However, we discover structures in the universe that couldn't have formed in that time and appear to be much older. To fix that inconsistency we come up with inflation - for a brief moment soon after the Big Bang things expanded much faster than previously thought and then slowed down to the rate Hubble observed.

When we discover galaxies and acquire the technology to observe their rotation we find that the outer edges more faster than they should for the amount of observable matter in apparent violation of General Relativity's description of gravity. To fix that inconsistency we come up with dark matter to provide an infusion of gravity and account for the observed motion. For dark matter to be the explanation it has to account for something like 83% of the matter in the universe. Meaning that everything we see - you, me, stars, planets, dust, nebulae, etc. is a miniscule 17% of all the "stuff" in the universe. There is more out there that we can't see than we can.

Now, we've determined that rather than slowing due to gravity the universe's expansion is actually speeding up. We've come up with dark energy to explain that, and for it to fit with observation it has to account for something like 73% of the mass-energy out there. Again the energy we can directly observe and measure is miniscule compared to the stuff we can only deduce by observation.

It feels to me like we're inventing things to fit our observations akin to how we stuck to the idea of an earth centered system for so long:

The sun, moon and stars appeared to move around our seemingly still earth, so we concluded earth is at the center and everything orbits in in perfect circles.

Then we found some stars move in retrograde and named them the "wanderers" - planetos in Greek, now planets. Instead of rethinking the original earth-centered idea the first instinct was to come up with a theory that allowed the earth to remain at the center while explaining the observed planetary motion and we got epicycles - the planets must move in little circles while orbiting the earth.

When the first detailed measurements showed that the motions weren't perfect circles we just added epicycles to epicycles to make the idea fit the observation.

Then we discovered moons orbiting some of those planets, proof that things can orbit something other than the earth. However the insistence on an earth-centric system remained even though there was a much cleaner heliocentric system out there - put the sun at the center and make the orbits eccentric rather than circular and all those little epicycles go away.

I get that the Church was primary force perpetuating the earth centered system because it played into its theology and enabled it to maintain dominance. Without the Church we may have settled upon the heliocentric system centuries or millennia earlier (I believe a number of ancient civilizations grasped the concept).

I feel like we're in a similar position now. We've become so wedded to our current understanding (Big Bang, General Relativity, etc). that we keep bending over backwards to come up with outlandish ideas when our observations don't fit what the theories predict. I feel like there must be a simpler explanation out there.

I've heard of plasma cosmology which suggests a lot of the motion and structure we observe in the universe can be explained if the universe is even bigger and older than we think and not born of a big bang. What other scientific theories have you encountered out of the mainstream that seem to have a decent argument? I'd love to read up on them.

[32176G60]

Gen. 1:1. But don't stop there.

[FigureFive]

Gen. 1:1. But don't stop there.

Yeah, been there. I'm talking science here, not mythology, which is all religion really is.

[Imaslipper]

This makes me laugh,

Just a few days ago in my chemistry class I made a comment to the teacher about the stuff we were learning. I said to her, how do we know that, an electron for instance, is this dense, or this wide. To me it seemed like just because a few guys a couple hundred years ago claimed this is what it is, no one challenged it!! I'm not saying they're wrong because i'm sure there is math and stuff to back it up but, it just cause Mr. Smith said this 500 years ago doesn't mean it was right. Even if he did back it up it could be wrong. I know theres a quote from stephen hawking about everything he learned. he claimed that everything he knows could be wrong, but its just his opinion.

[Lsos2]

Everybody knows that there's something wrong and/or missing with our current understanding of the universe.

The thing is that the way we currently explain it answers a lot of questions and allows us to do a lot of things that we otherwise wouldn't be able to do. So, you can't just go and throw out the current theories until something better comes along....that something better has to come FIRST, and then we can throw out (or more likely, modify) the old theories.

Yeah there might be a lot of guesses floating around out there that at first glance might sound plausible, but until one comes along that is actually better at explaining what is going on, and passes as many tests and experiments and attempts at dismembering it, the old theories will continue to stay.

And rightfully so.

As for what we know about the electron and the universe as a whole, every day scientists are paid huge sums of money to run immensely expensive experiments (such as the Large Hadron Collider) in attempts at DISPROVING its "density" or its "width" or anything else that we think we know about it. And, until they can do so, what we think we know about it will continue to be taught in chemistry class.

And rightfully so.

[passataholic]

Yeah, been there. I'm talking science here, not mythology, which is all religion really is.

great topic.
Many answers are still to be told, however we will not find them all.
Gen 1 does talk about science, however you have to have an understanding. Claiming its mythology is doing what you mentioned in your first post, taking what the given understanding is and applying it.
We are just inventing things to accomodate our ignorance, and so is saying Gen is mythology. Religion is just a hoax, but truth is consistent.
you're on the right track. The universe is older than we can dare to dream. It is farther than we will ever see in this life. good read, thanks.

[KrautFed]

OP: I think you would benefit (and enjoy) taking some higher level science classes at your local institute of higher learning. Once you go through the scientific method several times you will learn that nothing in science is ever proven, it's just that up until the point, nothing has falsified it. Also, you will see that the scientific method is a never ending cycle. Once a conclusion is produced, whether it finds the hypo true or false, it (the conclusion findings) get re-fed into the system and obserations begin the entire cycle over again. Just because something is generally accepted by society, doesn't mean there aren't groups of scientists out there trying to falsify ideas. The advancement of technology makes it so that scientists know that when an idea is either found true OR false, technology tomorrow could provide different results and data.

[gr8shandini]

. . .nothing in science is ever proven, it's just that up until the point, nothing has falsified it. . . .

But I think that's the OP's point. The discovery that the universe's expansion is accelerating would seem to falsify the current "big bang" theory, yet physicists have gone through some pretty specacular theoretical contortions to make the data fit the model. To me, the concept of dark matter and dark energy doesn't seem any different than the "aether" that scientists had invented until Einstein came along:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

There's no doubt that Einstein came up with some pretty useful equations, but that doesn't mean that all of his conclusions were correct. Hopefully, the recent CERN experiments will be confirmed and we can start introducing some fresh thinking to the subject.

For the record, I've always had trouble accepting general relativity. Assuming someone has sufficient mathmatical knowledge, you can teach him the core concepts of Newtonian physics in a couple of hours. Quantum physics takes a little longer, but still makes some intuitive sense. However, I made it all the way through a BS in engineering without meeting a single person who claims that they can truly wrap their head around relativity.

[NZTIGUAN]

With science you have to have a "theory" before you can try and prove it and that's all "dark matter" and the like are "theories". Yes they're away to make the "facts" (as known) fit the science, that's why the scientists have come up with them. They then argue and experiment around that theory until they reach a conclusion that they can all accept, which then stands until it's proven incorrect.

Black holes are a prime example. Stephan Hawking did some calculations that led him to the "theory" that there were black holes, but he couldn't prove it at the time. When a colleague believed he had the "proof" of that theory Hawking actually bet (a year's subscription to Penthouse or Playboy I think) against himself and said he was wrong (he said that way he was on a winner all round, if he WAS right then that was great and if was WRONG he'd get a years sub to a girly mag !!). Anyway, I digress, the colleague HAD found proof and now general science accepts black holes as fact.

This doesn't mean of course that sometime in the future somebody else won't come up with another theory and try and "disprove" black holes using more up to date methods etc.

So, I'm basically saying that science is FULL of theories of why something that has been discovered could be happening. This is where science is at its best, investigating those theories and attempting to prove or disprove them.

Cheers

[DonL]

... yet physicists have gone through some pretty specacular theoretical contortions to make the data fit the model...

Frankly, I think they're making the model fit the data, but that's JMO.

[DonL]

While we're on the subject:

A Higgs boson walks into a church. One parishioner whispers to another, "What's he doing here?" The second parishioner whispers back, "you know we can't have mass without him."

[NZTIGUAN]

This one from myTiguan forum today is VERY topical I think



The barman replies: "Sorry but we don't serve particles faster than light."

A neutrino walks into a bar

[koko12]

While we're on the subject:

A Higgs boson walks into a church. One parishioner whispers to another, "What's he doing here?" The second parishioner whispers back, "you know we can't have mass without him."

Say that joke on any bar and most likely the reaction you would get is something like "This idiot thinks he's funny."

[robw_z]

You're too smart for your own good. You're scratching at inherent problems in the scientific method, no matter what it is applied to. I've thought a lot about those things as well and basically I think science is over-awed these days. I don't think science is bad, it's just easy for the mainstream to perpetuate since it technically isn't very controversial as it is "hard science". But later an article will be run refuting that which was previously stated. Like they just announced that new research shows PSA exams do nothing to prevent prostate cancer... going so much against what was stated for years. And maybe later they'll say it does help again.

Even Einstein has been "proven wrong" many times, most largely that he didn't believe in quantum mechanics. And as you've probably heard the speed of light being the speed limit of all the cosmos has recently been called into question, which basically calls into question everything Einstein ever did. He wasn't wrong, he just didn't go all the way and he probably knew that himself.

The Unabomber, in his manifesto, wrote basically that all scientists are doing is pursuing their own ego's, and doing vastly less than it seems to help society. Take it as you will, he was crazy but he was very smart.


I wonder if science will somehow become what the Church once was... not exactly what it was but something like it. And then a new age of what? I dunno.

-Rob

[bxr140]

I feel like there must be a simpler explanation out there.

There is: At no point in the continuum of the universe will anyone ever truly understand the universe. To wit, acceptance of ignorance is the first step to enlightenment.

...why aren't we more skeptical of our current theories of the the universe?

In the higher scientific community, dissent is actually very much opposed and stifled. Make no mistake, egos of devout men are not easily dissuaded.

In the end, the actual content of scientific discussion is really much less important than the simple existence of discussion.

[DonL]

I see the OP's point in questioning. Sometimes it does seem like people are just making crap up to explain away their own failings at scientific discovery.

[Rob Cote]

"It feels to me like we're inventing things to fit our observations akin to how we stuck to the idea of an earth centered system for so long"

The explanation which is supported by evidence is the correct one.

"The thing is that the way we currently explain it answers a lot of questions and allows us to do a lot of things that we otherwise wouldn't be able to do. So, you can't just go and throw out the current theories until something better comes along"

And since the current theories we have are supported by evidence, they will not be replaced. They may be expanded upon or modified in some fashion. Just because you've developed a tool to gather more/different evidence does not make the evidence that you've already collected invalid.

Most of that has already been said. I just wanted to reiterate and also subscribe for more legitimate discussion.