next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
Hi Burkhard, Lois, Don & All,
The more I hear about the big bang, which seems to be heavy on
speculation and light on certainty, the more I am inclined to turn to
the present and try to understand it.
One puzzle to which I have found no clear answer is a statement in a
text on Electricity and Magnetism (G.R. Noakes,1950); (page 322) that
ratios of such measurements as capacity in electromagnetic units and
capacity in electrostatic units is "...the simplest direct way of
determining c, the speed of light. It would be inconvenient to do so but
this suggests that the speed of light (in air ?) could be measured in
the dark.
Does this imply that c is determined by the interaction of
electrostatic and electromagnetic forces (possible because light waves
involve both) or is this just a coincidence of ratios between two
independently developed systems of measurement ?
YT, DW, Kentville
------ Original Message ------
From: "Burkhard Plache" <burkhardplache@gmail.com>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Sent: 2/24/2019 10:38:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Big Bang?
>Everybody following this discussion may want to read about common
>misconceptions held regarding what the Big Bang Theory states and does
>not state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Misconceptions
>Getting those out of the way may allow us to focus on the more relevant points.
>
>On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 10:33 PM Burkhard Plache
><burkhardplache@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Don,
>>
>> The popular notion that 'everything came from a singularity' is not
>> part of the Big Bang Theory. It is repeated in popular
>> descriptions, causing misconceptions of what the Big Bang Theory is about.
>>
>> Furthermore, the Big Bang Theory does not work with Special
>> Relativity, it requires General Relativity. Hence, your statement that
>> we
>> need to scrap Special Relativity is quite right, It is not up to the
>> task, and replaced by General Relativity. The important change when
>> working with General Relativity is that space can expand (which is
>> where your arguments lose validity).
>>
>> When space between two points (objects) A and B expands, it does not
>> mean that objects A and B suddenly speed up. It means that after some
>> time, there is more space between A and B than there was previously.
>> As a result, the distance between A and B has increased. And while
>> this process might look superficially as if A and B are moving apart,
>> the underlying reality (according to General Relativity) is different.
>>
>> Under these new circumstances, your suggestion that the size of the
>> 'primordial atom does not matter' is no longer true. Due to the
>> expansion of space, the size does matter.
>>
>> An initial distance of e.g., one light year between two point in space
>> (A,B) might have expanded to more than the currently visible size of
>> the universe,
>> and light from point A would still not have reached point B. It all
>> depends on the rate of expansion of space between A and B (any two
>> points, for that matter). If space expands at a high enough rate,
>> while there is no region on the line A-to-B where a speed between two
>> nearby point is exceeding the speed of light, but light emitted at one
>> point might not yet have made it through.
>>
>> Such points A and B actually exist: When looking from Earth into
>> opposite directions (e.g, to north past the polar star is one
>> direction, and to south from Antarctica is the second direction) into
>> the past of the universe, galaxies in the far, far distance, at an age
>> shortly after the beginning of the known universe, could be at such
>> points A and B. And light from one such point has not yet reached the
>> other point. It just made it to Earth (took 14 Billion years), and has
>> a long way to go to the other end of the universe.
>>
>> Hopefully this clears up some things,
>> willing to answer more questions,
>> Burkhard
>>
>> Keith, saw your email: Dark energy is not needed for this discussion.
>> All arguments relevant to the general expansion are valid with
>> 'regular' General Relativity.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:07 PM Lois Codling
>> <loiscodling@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I've been following this discussion with considerable interest. From
>> > everything I have ever read or heard, the Big Bang theory assumes
>> > everything came from a singularity, a primordial atom that in a sense
>> > was the densest possible black hole. Assuming that is the case, and
>> > assuming that the theory of relativity is correct, it seems to me that
>> > there can be no particle whose light has not had time to reach us. Every
>> > particle should in principle be visible (if we have sensitive enough
>> > "telescopes") though the farther they are away from us, the more distant
>> > in the past would be the image we could detect. That is, we see Alpha
>> > Centauri where and as it was about 4 years ago, the Greater Magellan
>> > Cloud where it was and as it was about 150,000 years ago, etc.
>> >
>> > The suggestion that some things have not had time for radiation from
>> > them to reach us seems to require either severe modification or
>> > scrapping of the big bang theory or the theory of special relativity or
>> > both.
>> >
>> > Note that it does not really matter if the "primordial atom" were larger
>> > than the commonly assumed point. Unless it was larger in light years
>> > than the age of the universe, radiation from every particle should
>> > implicitly have reached us long since; but that completely tosses the
>> > big bang theory. Of course if you postulate items that neither emit or
>> > reflect radiation, they would be invisible even if they were very close.
>> > That's really outside the scope of this discussion, I think.
>> >
>> > Don Codling
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive