BIG BANG WRONG OR REAL

         

Was Big Bang really happened? is it true or not? we know that scientist practically try to examine the Big Bang in Large Hadron Collider but there are some logics that are not true or bloody meaningless. And also unable to answer those questions. Now I am going to discuss on it. One day I  was reading an article.. what's wrong with big bang.. then I found some logics that can challenge the Big Bang Theory…….. 

1….   Stephen Hawking said that the time and everything were created after the Big Bang so there was no time before bigbang so there was no space as the space and the time are related. So as there was no space where the small point singularity located. Because we know that the smallest particle in the universe is quark the size of quark is 10^-18 metre. So it takes a minimum space to stay. So it is meaningless to say that there was no time and no space before the Big Bang.

2…. Stephen Hawking said that Big Bang happened about 13.8 billion years ago in a massive Dense small point. And after the massive explosion happened, the universe was created. So we know that anything in the world in the universe made with atom. So I can say that the particle when the Big Bang happened was made with atoms. So there was electrons and we know electrons have a  velocity. So there was the concept of time. So there was space but it breaks The Big Bang Theory. Besides you can say that there were quarks which is the smallest thing in the universe in the time of Big Bang. I will answer that the quarks not only quarks but also everything in the universe vibrate. So as there was vibration there was also time, but It Breaks the law of Big Bang. 

3….We know that when we heat a small particle, it will vibrate from time to time when the temperature increases. As it vibrates so I can say that there was a concept of velocity and also there was a concept of time. Stephen Hawking said in the Big Bang Theory that in the point of Singularity, the temperature was infinity.  As the temperature was infinity it Vibrated highly. So there was a really existence of velocity and time which breaks the rule of Bang. 

4….We know if anywhere a big bomb blast happens it makes a big hole   or vacuum in any place. so if the bigbang really happened there was any big vacuum or big hole in the space universe. As Big Bang was a big explosion it created a big hole.. massive hole but our scientist cannot find any big hole or vacuum in the space for now. 

5 ....In previous point, I say everything in the world have vibration and we all know a small particle much much small particle need a minimum space to vibrate. So if Big Bang really happened, there was a small particle which was vibrate as their placed a big explosion in the point Singularity. I mean in the small particle also vibrate. So it needed some space to vibrate but by Big Bang, there was no space. 

6…..By the big bang theory we know that the point where the explosion made was infinite in mass, temperature and density. But after Big Bang Infinity mass density or energy became finite, but it also breaks the energy conservation law.

7…...Now another question is why did the Big Bang happen? Stephen could not able to give the answer. Another thing is what is before the Big Bang? We have no particular idea. 

 So the Big Bang is proved as wrong. 

In this chapter  I give six Logic that break the law of Big Bang. 

 This is in brief of the wrong information in Big Bang Theory. 

It is my vision of the wrong information of the big bang. 

But now I am giving some articles which are written by some cosmologists. 

Could the Big Bang Be Wrong?

By Corey S. Powell | June 15, 2019 3:02 pm

1K

A short history of the universe since the time of the Big Bang. We can directly observe more than 13 billion years of change, but the beginning itself is an enduring mystery. (Credit: ESA)

The Big Bang is the defining narrative of modern cosmology: a bold declaration that our universe had a beginning and has a finite age, just like the humans who live within it. That finite age, in turn, is defined by the evidence that the universe is expanding (again, and unfortunately, many of us are familiar with that feeling as well). Those two ideas–a singular cosmic beginning, followed by billions of years of cosmic growth–are so strange that some people have never made peace with them. As a result, skeptics have been questioning the validity of the Big Bang model for as long as there has been a Big Bang model.

Among mainstream cosmologists, doubts about the Big Bang largely melted away in the 1960s with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background–an omnidirectional buzz of radiation that makes sense only as a relic from the hot, early era of the universe. But around the fringe, the doubts have persisted. Lately they have intensified, inspired by a puzzling discrepancy in different measurements of how the universe is expanding. Even scientific centrists acknowledge that our understanding of the early universe is glaringly incomplete. So now is a prime time, it seems to me, to dig into the big question: Could the Big Bang be wrong?

This question comes up all the time in public forums and on social media. In most cases, it seems rooted not so much in misgivings about the science as in misunderstanding of what science is. Any meaningful answer therefore has to begin with a crucial piece of clarification: The Big Bang means two quite different things depending on who you are talking to.

In popular conversation, the Big Bang is often used broadly to mean the mysterious primal event that created the universe, and it is commonly envisioned as a tremendous explosion emanating from a single point. (To be fair, popular articles and illustrations often reinforce those ideas with oversimplification and confusing language.) But that is not what cosmologists mean by the Big Bang.

One key point is that the Big Bang was not an explosion of the kind any person has ever witnessed. “This is a hard concept for people to get their heads around,” says Wendy Freedman, a veteran cosmologist at the University of Chicago. “The first thing to get rid of is an image analogous to a bomb — which is our first tendency to imagine, and which is wrong — where you have an explosion with matter that flies outward from a center. This is not what happens in space. The Big Bang is an explosion of space, and not into space. There is no center or edge to the explosion.”

There was no place outside of the Big Bang, so it was not expanding into anything. Rather, all of space began expanding, everywhere. That is why galaxies appear to be moving away from us in every direction. Any observer, anywhere, would see the same thing. I sometimes think of the Big Bang as a metaphor for human psychology. In a sense, you can think of yourself as the center of the universe, since that’s how it looks to all observers. But in a deeper sense, nobody is at the center, since the expansion is everywhere and all of us are in the same situation.

For anyone wondering how the universe could have formed from an explosion at one point in space, the answer is that it couldn’t. That idea truly is wrong — but it is also not at all what the Big Bang describes.

Which brings me to the other key point: The Big Bang is a description of how the universe began, not an explanation of why it began. It does not assume anything about what (or who) made the universe, and it does not assume anything about what (if anything) came before.

The expanding universe stretches light, causing it to appear increasingly red with distance. There is no other known explanation for this cosmological redshift. (Credit: NASA/ESA/L. Hustak)

To modern cosmologists, the Big Bang is a model describing how the universe expanded from an extremely hot, dense early state into the reality that we see today. The evidence for this interpretation overwhelming. Certainly, nothing else has come anywhere close in the last 50 years, even as our knowledge about the universe has grown tremendously.

The most famous evidence for the Big Bang comes from “redshifts,” the observed stretching of light from distant galaxies, but that’s hardly the only source of support. The spectrum and distribution of the cosmic microwave background exactly matches expectations of the hot Big Bang. The evolution of galaxies testifies to the finite age of the universe, and the observed ages of stars exactly match up with the age of the universe deduced from the cosmic expansion. The large-scale distribution of galaxies displays a subtle rippling pattern that corresponds to the inferred rippling of acoustic waves in Big Bang’s primordial soup of particles and radiation. The observed abundances of hydrogen, helium, deuterium and lithium in the universe exactly align with models of the nuclear reactions that occurred in that soup.

Could that entire Big Bang framework of interpretation be wrong? I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but I will call it … inconceivable.

One of the last serious holdouts against the Big Bang was late cosmologist Geoffrey Burbidge, who had championed the Steady State cosmology early in his career and refused to abandon his pet theory even long after the evidence falsified it. Later in life he came up with a complicated oscillating-universe model, which effectively incorporates many small big bangs. So really, he accepted the Big Bang, just without saying so. Discover ran a detailed profile of Burbidge and his ideas in 2005.

All-sky map of the cosmic microwave background, created by the Planck spacecraft, provides a snapshot of the temperature of the universe when it was 380,000 years old. The Big Bang is the only known explanation for this radiation. (Credit: ESA/Planck Collaboration)

I’ve come across many proposed alternatives to the Big Bang, but I’ve never seen one that deals honestly and comprehensively with the vast observational evidence that our universe had a hot, dense beginning about 13.8 billion years ago. The closest to a true outsider alternative that I know of is the plasma-cosmology model of Eric Lerner, a plasma physicist who developed a cult following for his view that the Big Bang never happened. His model is thoroughly inconsistent with the data, however.

At the same time, it is important to be open about how much we don’t know. It is not only possible, it is absolutely certain that our understanding of the Big Bang is incomplete.

Cosmic inflation is a widely accepted theory about what happened during the first fraction of a second during the Big Bang, but it is not proven. The current dispute over the cosmic expansion rate may be a reflection of our ignorance about that early era. Why and how the Big Bang occurred are complete mysteries. You may have heard cosmologists speculate about the “Multiverse,” or about the idea of an oscillating universe with many beginnings, or about a collision between two membranes of reality that created our universe. Nobody knows which of these ideas, if any, is correct. But what they all have in common is that they all accept the evidence that our current universe emerged from an intensely hot, dense early state — which is to say, they all take the Big Bang as their starting point.

Was there a time before the Big Bang? Will the universe expand forever? Will there be another Big Bang? Is the universe finite or infinite? Do other universes exist? These are all exciting, wide open questions. We have a lot to learn about our place in nature’s grand scheme. But we can be quite confident that, wherever future theories and discoveries take us, the Big Bang will be a part of the picture.

Another paper on the wrong side of the big bang :

The Big Bang Wasn't The Beginning, After All

Ethan SiegelSenior Contributor

Starts With A BangContributor Group

Science

The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.

This article is more than 2 years old.

A Universe that expands and cools today, like ours does, must have been hotter and denser in the past. Initially, the Big Bang was regarded as the singularity from which this ultimate, hot, dense state emerged. But we know better today.

The Universe began not with a whimper, but with a bang! At least, that’s what you’re commonly told: the Universe and everything in it came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Space, time, and all the matter and energy within began from a singular point, and then expanded and cooled, giving rise over billions of years to the atoms, stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies spread out across billions of light years that make up our observable Universe. It’s a compelling, beautiful picture that explains so much of what we see, from the present large-scale structure of the Universe’s two trillion galaxies to the leftover glow of radiation permeating all of existence. Unfortunately, it’s also wrong, and scientists have known this for almost 40 years.

The idea of the Big Bang first came about back in the 1920s and 1930s. When we looked out at distant galaxies, we discovered something peculiar: the farther away from us they were, the faster they appeared to be receding from us. According to the predictions of Einstein’s General Relativity, a static Universe would be gravitationally unstable; everything needed to either be moving away from one another or collapsing towards one another if the fabric of space obeyed his laws. The observation of this apparent recession taught us that the Universe was expanding today, and if things are getting farther apart as time goes on, it means they were closer together in the distant past.

An expanding Universe doesn’t just mean that things get farther apart as time goes on, it also means that the light existing in the Universe stretches in wavelength as we travel forward in time. Since wavelength determines energy (shorter is more energetic), that means the Universe cools as we age, and hence things were hotter in the past. Extrapolate this back far enough, and you’ll come to a time where everything was so hot that not even neutral atoms could form. If this picture were correct, we should see a leftover glow of radiation today, in all directions, that had cooled to just a few degrees above absolute zero. The discovery of this Cosmic Microwave Background in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson was a breathtaking confirmation of the Big Bang.

It’s tempting, therefore, to keep extrapolating backwards in time, to when the Universe was even hotter, denser, and more compact. If you continue to go back, you’ll find:

A time where it was too hot to form atomic nuclei, where the radiation was so hot that any bound protons-and-neutrons would be blasted apart.

A time where matter and antimatter pairs could spontaneously form, as the Universe is so energetic that pairs of particles/antiparticles can spontaneously be created.

A time where individual protons and neutrons break down into a quark-gluon plasma, as the temperatures and densities are so high that the Universe becomes denser than the inside of an atomic nucleus.

And finally, a time where the density and temperature rise to infinite values, as all the matter and energy in the Universe are contained within a single point: a singularity.

This very final point — this singularity that represents where the laws of physics break down — also is understood to represent the origin of space and time. This was the ultimate idea of the Big Bang.

Of course, everything except that last point has been confirmed to be true! We’ve created quark-gluon plasmas in the lab; we’ve created matter-antimatter pairs; we’ve done the calculations for which light elements should form and in what abundances during the early stages of the Universe, made the measurements, and found that they match with the Big Bang’s predictions. Coming forward even farther, we’ve measured the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background and seen how gravitationally bound structures like stars and galaxies form and grow. Everywhere we look, we find a tremendous agreement between theory and observation. The Big Bang looks like a winner.

Except, that is, in a few regards. Three specific things you would expect from the Big Bang didn’t happen. In particular:

The Universe doesn’t have different temperatures in different directions, even though an area billions of light-years away in one direction never had time (since the Big Bang) to interact with or exchange information with an area billions of light-years in the opposite direction.

The Universe doesn’t have a measurable spatial curvature that’s different from zero, even though a Universe that’s perfectly spatially flat requires a perfect balance between the initial expansion and the matter-and-radiation density.

The Universe doesn’t have any leftover ultra-high-energy relics from the earliest times, even though the temperatures that would create these relics should have existed if the Universe were arbitrarily hot.

Theorists thinking about these problems started thinking of alternatives to a “singularity” to the Big Bang, and rather of what could recreate that hot, dense, expanding, cooling state while avoiding these problems. In December of 1979, Alan Guth hit upon a solution.

Instead of an arbitrarily hot, dense state, the Universe could have begun from a state where there was no matter, no radiation, no antimatter, no neutrinos, and no particles at all. All the energy present in the Universe would rather be bound up in the fabric of space itself: a form of vacuum energy, which causes the Universe to expand at an exponential rate. In this cosmic state, quantum fluctuations would still exist, and so as space expanded, these fluctuations would get stretched across the Universe, creating regions with slightly-more or slightly-less than average energy densities. And finally, when this phase of the Universe — this period of inflation — came to an end, that energy would get converted into matter-and-radiation, creating the hot, dense state synonymous with the Big Bang.

This was regarded as a compelling-but-speculative idea, but there was a way to test it. If we were able to measure the fluctuations in the Big Bang’s leftover glow, and they exhibited a particular pattern consistent with inflation’s predictions, that would be a “smoking gun” for inflation. Furthermore, those fluctuations would have to be very small in magnitude: small enough that the Universe could never have reached the temperatures necessary to create high-energy relics, and much smaller than the temperatures and densities where space and time would appear to emerge from a singularity. In the 1990s, 2000s, and then again in the 2010s, we measured those fluctuations in detail, and found exactly that.

The conclusion was inescapable: the hot Big Bang definitely happened, but doesn’t extend to go all the way back to an arbitrarily hot and dense state. Instead, the very early Universe underwent a period of time where all of the energy that would go into the matter and radiation present today was instead bound up in the fabric of space itself. That period, known as cosmic inflation, came to an end and gave rise to the hot Big Bang, but never created an arbitrarily hot, dense state, nor did it create a singularity. What happened prior to inflation — or whether inflation was eternal to the past — is still an open question, but one thing is for certain: the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe!

Other information :

Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’

big bang

Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’ 

THE Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.

The Universe is thought to have popped into existence some 13.8 billion years ago when an infinitesimal point expanded in just a fraction of a second. The Big Bang theory has stood for the best part of 100 years after Belgian physicist Georges Lemaître first proposed in 1927 the expansion of the Universe could be traced back to a single point. However, the well-accepted model is now under the microscope after a team of researchers found a star which appears to be older than the cosmos.

A star known as “Methuselah star”, or scientifically called HD 140283, is situated about 200 lightyears away and has stumped experts.

Analysis of the star showed that it contained very little iron content, which would suggest that it formed during a period when the iron element was not abundant in the Universe.

This in turn led to the discovery of the star is 14.5 billion years old, some 0.7 billion years older than the Universe.

Experts met at a conference in California in July in an attempt to solve the mystery, but so far the questions have just led to more questions – and it could lead to a “scientific revolution”.

“Methuselah star”, or scientifically called HD 140283 (Image: NASA)

British physicist Robert Matthews wrote for UAE-based media outlet The National: “It’s a riddle of cosmic proportions: How can the universe contain stars older than itself?

“That’s the conundrum now facing astronomers trying to establish the age of the universe — and its resolution could spark a scientific revolution.

“Astronomers now know it contains very little iron — which means it must have been formed before this element became common in the universe.

“And that implies HD 140283 must be almost as old as the universe itself.

The first is that the assumed age of the Universe is incorrect.

The Big Bang was traced back to its starting point when scientists measured the rate of expansion of the Universe.

By discovering how fast the cosmos was expanding, scientists were able to essentially apply their equation in reverse to trace everything back to the beginning.

"HD 140283 must be almost as old as the universe itself.” 

With scientific tools now more advanced and accurate, it could be time to measure the expansion yet again to deduce a better time frame.

Another possible explanation for the discrepancy could be to do with the dark energy – the mysterious substance which acts as a counter to gravity.

Dr Matthews continued: “Days before last month’s meeting, the journal Nature Astronomy published an estimate of the cosmic-expansion rate based on analysis of gravitational waves detected from such an event in 2017.

"The time may have come to think the unthinkable.” 

“Unfortunately, it’s still too rough and ready to resolve the paradox of the Methuselah star or the mystery of the two cosmic ages.

“Astronomers already think this so-called Dark Energy played a critical role in the Big Bang – although they still have no idea where it came from.

“But with one leading astronomer at last month’s meeting describing the current impasse as a scientific crisis, the time may have come to think the unthinkable.”

Another  interesting information……. 

                             Nobel-winning cosmologist James Peebles has a bone to pick with the scientific community: he wants the world to stop referring to the earliest moments of our universe as the “Big Bang.”

His main beef, according to Agence France-Presse, is that there’s no good way to test whether such a thing actually happened — cosmologists have evidence of a rapid outward expansion, but not anything as discreet as a singular point that detonated to create everything in the universe.

“It’s very unfortunate that one thinks of the beginning whereas in fact, we have no good theory of such a thing as the beginning,” he told AFP.

Peebles doesn’t have an alternative to the Big Bang theory to propose, but that’s his exact point: without sufficient data, scientists shouldn’t assume a convenient hypothesis is correct.

“We don’t have a strong test of what happened earlier in time,” Peebles told AFP. “We have theories, but not tested.”

But Peebles isn’t quite ready to die on this hill — he concedes that in the absence of a better way to describe the beginning of the universe, “Big Bang” does just fine.

“I have given up,” he told AFP, “I use Big Bang, I dislike it.”

“But for years, some of us have tried to persuade the community to find a better term without success,” he said. “So ‘Big Bang’ it is. It’s unfortunate, but everyone knows that name. So I give up.”