Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 86

Thread: Big BANG or Big BLOAT ???

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    intro, What exactly do you think anyone can do to change an informal, unscientific popular name? Is there a way to control what the average person calls a theory that most of them don't really understand?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    Exactly, my point -- in support of mainstream science.
    Inflation is still only hypothetical. A lot of people (including some who originally proposed it) don't think it is necessary.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    I am not into control.
    Popular usage of a scientific name comes from scientific articles using accurate names / titles/ descriptions.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Inflation is still only hypothetical. A lot of people (including some who originally proposed it) don't think it is necessary.
    Interesting. Do you have a link in support of your assertion?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    Interesting. Do you have a link in support of your assertion?
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...lped-conceive/

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Super interesting link & interview. Many thanks.
    Side note: It boggles my mind that such a complex universe-full-of-theories generates a surprising amount of dogmatic belief & defensive-ism.
    Free-range questions & exploration will generate more answers, more quickly.
    Many years ago I was in a red-light (good marketable products for Saran-wrap) vs green-light (come up with any product idea) experiment.
    The red-light group came up with 100 ideas, but few marketable one -- after a lot of argument & rancor.
    The green-light group came up with 1,000 crazy product ideas, had a ton of fun, & created many, many good product applications.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    Side note: It boggles my mind that such a complex universe-full-of-theories generates a surprising amount of dogmatic belief & defensive-ism.
    Human nature, I guess. But most people (especially scientists) will change their minds when presented with evidence.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    I am not into control.
    Popular usage of a scientific name comes from scientific articles using accurate names / titles/ descriptions.
    Then how did Big Bang become popular? It certainly does not fit what you describe.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Inflation is still only hypothetical. A lot of people (including some who originally proposed it) don't think it is necessary.
    Strange,

    Be careful. The answers in Q&A must be the current, mainstream answers. If you wish to discuss competing ideas, I suggest taking it to a new thread in Astronomy.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    The following is a list of scientific evidence favoring expansion. Inflation is a bit separate and it lasted for only a tiny, tiny fraction of a second. "Bloat" sounds a bit too gastric and "expansion" seems to fit nicely with the evidence.

    The Expansion of the Universe.
    ....> Hubble Constant (redshift) More (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/hubble.html)
    ....> Einstein's field equations (1916) predicted an expanding (or contracting) universe
    ....> Time Dilation of Supernova More1 (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...1999.html)also More2 (http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/public/)
    ....> Gamma Ray Bursts
    ....> The CMBR - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
    ........> The wavelength (microwave)
    ........> The Temperature (2.73K).
    ........> The Blackbody Results.
    ........> The "smoothness" (isotropy)
    ........> The very small "roughness" (anisotropy) in this radiation. WMAP (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html)
    ........> The angular size of the "hot" spots matching predictions.
    ........> The power spectrum
    ....> Distant Cloud temperatures
    ....> The Element Abundances from Nucleosynthesis.
    ....> Helium (25%)
    ....> Deuterium, its relative abundance.
    ....> The observed Differences in Galaxies between today's and earlier ones.
    ........> Paucity of distant Barred Spirals.
    ........> Less organized distant Spirals.
    ........> No local Quasars.
    ....> The Age of the Universe in relation to Stellar Compositions.
    ....> Olber's Paradox resolved.
    ....> Entropy - "The universe is dying" (Helmholtz & 2nd Law).
    ....> Galactic Superstructure of Super Clusters and Galactic Strands
    ....> No Ancient Objects older than 15 billion years.
    ....> The anisotropy found in background neutrino maping, probably.
    ....> The Lyman Forest morphology
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    While it is true the "The Expanding Universe" is a much better title because it focuses on what the model actually describes, rather than a hypothetical "event", it is nowhere near as snappy so I don't think "Big Bang" as the nickname is going away.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    "Bloat" sounds a bit too gastric and "expansion" seems to fit nicely with the evidence.
    I might go with one of the more current scientific descriptions, such as the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Theory, or LCDM for short.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    The following is a list of scientific evidence favoring expansion. Inflation is a bit separate and it lasted for only a tiny, tiny fraction of a second. "Bloat" sounds a bit too gastric and "expansion" seems to fit nicely with the evidence.....
    This is very helpful. Thank you.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    While it is true the "The Expanding Universe" is a much better title because it focuses on what the model actually describes, rather than a hypothetical "event", it is nowhere near as snappy so I don't think "Big Bang" as the nickname is going away.
    The nickname is fine (for the general populace).
    But I'm shocked there isn't a more accurate name that scientists use.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    But I'm shocked there isn't a more accurate name that scientists use.
    There are more accurate terms, as several people have said.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    9,036
    I cannot imagine any more accurate expression that would evoke an intelligible mental picture of the mainstream model in the mind of someone who does not already have a strong background in the pertinent modern physics. A mental picture of an explosion just after the moment of detonation or rupture resembles, at least superficially, the earliest stages of the evolution of our universe according to the mainstream model. It does not remotely resemble the erstwhile rival model, Hoyle's steady state model. True, a novice often envisions a blast of matter into previously empty space, which is technically incorrect but nevertheless is a natural default mental picture. I trust the experts who have mathematically modeled a finite but unbounded spacetime continum, but I cannot visualize the bloody thing in any physical sense. In light of all of this I consider the commonly given objections to the use of "Big Bang" as being overly pedantic, when addressed to the general public.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    I like the idea that a black hole here is a white hole, or "big bang" in another universe. Different time scales so everything the black hole "eats" erupts into the new universe "instantly". I love the thought that all those black holes are creating new universes, and all the black holes in those universes would create new universes.

    Then I think of the scale of that and climb under my blankie for a while.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    This is very helpful. Thank you.
    Your welcome. The best evidence out of all those is found in the CMBR - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. When this was discovered by balloon instruments and COBE (followed by better probes thereafter), it was the nail in the coffin for any opposing theory. The CMBR was a major prediction that emerged from the BB theory (originally from the Belgian priest and MIT PhD, George Lemaitre, though a Russian mathematician, Friedman, seems to have been the first to recognize that General Relativity implied expansion). Perhaps a new theory will emerge but it will have to explain all the evidence listed above, and perhaps more.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    I like the idea that a black hole here is a white hole, or "big bang" in another universe. Different time scales so everything the black hole "eats" erupts into the new universe "instantly". I love the thought that all those black holes are creating new universes, and all the black holes in those universes would create new universes.

    Then I think of the scale of that and climb under my blankie for a while.
    This is the second time I've had to post warnings in this thread about non-mainstreams answers. This is a difficult enough thread without people confusing things with speculation and non-mainstream ideas.

    That's the last warning. Next occurrence gets points.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    Sorry, wasn't my idea so I didn't know it wasn't mainstream. Apologies to the forum.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    Side note: It boggles my mind that such a complex universe-full-of-theories generates a surprising amount of dogmatic belief & defensive-ism.
    Scientists will go where the evidence takes them, which is the antithesis of dogma. Over and over and over again, the history of science has thrown up examples of commonly held ideas being overturned because the evidence showed differently.

    Dogma would be (for example) continuing to hold that life requires divine intervention because it could not exist in a gluon-plasma soup, despite it being patiently explained on multiple occasions why such an argument is utterly spurious.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    The nickname is fine (for the general populace).
    But I'm shocked there isn't a more accurate name that scientists use.
    Big Bang is the official name for the "explosion" of the universe used in science by scientists (SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) gives 12,287 abstracts matching 'Big Bang'). It is accurate because people who learn about cosmology know what it means. This certainly includes scientists! It generally includes anyone with high school science level education since about the first thing they are taught is that the Big Bang is not a physical explosion.

    N.B. the Big Bang is only part of mainstream cosmology. Scientists often use the Lambda-CDM model as a more accurate name for the mainstream understanding of the universe.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Big Bang is the official name for the "explosion" of the universe used in science by scientists (SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) gives 12,287 abstracts matching 'Big Bang'). It is accurate because people who learn about cosmology know what it means. This certainly includes scientists! It generally includes anyone with high school science level education since about the first thing they are taught is that the Big Bang is not a physical explosion.
    But did the BB name become widely known because it's "official", or adopted as official because it was already well known? Most scientists who write papers about it for the last few decades, probably grew up hearing the term Big Bang informally, from fellow students, popular science, and the news media, until it became semi-official.

    Now the terminology has its roots embedded so deep in our culture, I doubt it could be uprooted even with a concerted advertising campaign.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    But did the BB name become widely known because it's "official", or adopted as official because it was already well known?
    It was adopted as official because it was widely used which is how scientific theories get named. Maybe it would be nice if there was an official "Theory Naming" committee !
    Fred Hoyle is credited with coining Big Bang in 1949 to highlight the accepted model from his Steady State model. Other scientists started using it in papers and textbooks which made it "official".

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,631
    Quote Originally Posted by intro View Post
    The nickname is fine (for the general populace).
    But I'm shocked there isn't a more accurate name that scientists use.
    There certainly is. It is called The Inflationary Epoch.

    But you are missing the mark. A nickname does not an education make.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It was adopted as official because it was widely used which is how scientific theories get named. Maybe it would be nice if there was an official "Theory Naming" committee !
    Fred Hoyle is credited with coining Big Bang in 1949 to highlight the accepted model from his Steady State model. Other scientists started using it in papers and textbooks which made it "official".
    And Hoyle meant it to be disparaging.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    And Hoyle meant it to be disparaging.
    I don't want to be accused of being non-mainstream () but there is some debate about that. Afterwards, he insisted he was just looking for a succinct name to contrast with "steady state."

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I don't want to be accused of being non-mainstream () but there is some debate about that. Afterwards, he insisted he was just looking for a succinct name to contrast with "steady state."
    Possibly a bit of CYA going on there?

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,221
    Physics and astronomy have all kinds of nomenclature problems. We need to not get obsessed about it and focus on the actual science.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Noisy Rhysling View Post
    Possibly a bit of CYA going on there?
    From what I know of Fred Hoyle, possibly the least likely person to do that. He was rather known for voicing unpopular opinions and sticking to his guns.

    Grant Hutchison

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •