标记档案: 大爆炸理论

宇宙大爆炸理论 – 第二部分

阅读后 论文Ashtekar 量子重力和思考它, 我意识到我的麻烦与宇宙大爆炸理论是. 它更多的是对较细节的基本假设. 我以为我会在这里总结一下我的想法, 以上为我自己的利益比任何其他人的.

经典理论 (包括SR和QM) 治疗空间连续虚无; 因此,长期时空连续. 在此视图中, 存在于连续的空间物体和彼此在连续时间进行交互.

虽然时空连续统这一概念是直观的吸引力, 这是, 充其量, 残缺. 考虑, 例如, 一个旋转体的空. 它预期会遇到的离心力. 现在想象一下,身体是静止的,整个空间旋转周围. 它会不会遇到任何离心力?

这是很难理解为什么会有任何离心力,如果空间是空的虚无.

GR介绍了一个范式转变通过编码重力进入时空从而在本质上动态, 而不是空洞虚无. 因此,, 质量得到沉浸在太空 (和时间), 空间变得代名词宇宙, 和纺纱身体问题变得很容易回答. 是的, 它会经历离心力,如果它是旋转它周围的宇宙,因为它是等效于人体的纺丝. 和, 别, 它不会, 如果它是在刚刚空的空间. 但 “空” 不存在. 在没有质量, 没有时空几何.

所以, 自然, 在大爆炸之前 (如果有一个), 不可能有任何空间, 也确实可以有任何 “之前。” 注意, 然而,, 该Ashtekar文件并没有明确说明为什么必须有一个大爆炸. 它得到最接近的是,BB的必要性产生于重力的空间 - 时间中的GR的编码. 尽管引力的这种编码,从而使时空动态, GR仍然把时空的连续平稳 — 一大败笔, 根据Ashtekar, 这QG整顿.

现在, 如果我们承认,宇宙开始了一次大爆炸 (并从一个小区域), 我们必须考虑量子效应. 时空必须是量化的唯一正确的方式做这将是通过量子引力. 通过QG, 我们希望避免GR的大爆炸奇点, 以同样的方式QM解决了氢原子的无界基态能量问题.

我上面描述的就是我所理解的背后现代宇宙学的物理参数. 剩下的就是数学的大厦建立在这个物质之上 (或甚哲学) 基金会. 如果你对哲学基础没有强烈的意见 (或者如果你的意见与它保持一致), 你能接受BB没有困难. 不幸, 我有不同的看法.

我的看法围绕以下问题旋转.

这些职位可能听起来像无用的哲学沉思, 但我确实有一些具体的 (在我看来,, 重要) 结果, 下面列出.

还有更多的工作需要在这方面做的. 但对于未来几年, 从我的职业生涯定量我的新书合同和压力, 我没有足够的时间来研究遗传资源和宇宙学与应有的严肃性. 我希望要回他们一次传播自己太薄通行证的当前阶段.

宇宙大爆炸理论

I am a physicist, but I don’t quite understand the Big Bang theory. Let me tell you why.

The Big Bang theory says that the whole universe started from a “singularity” — a single point. The first question then is, a single point where? It is not a single point “in space” because the whole space was a single point. The Discovery channel would put it fancifully that “the whole universe could fit in the palm of your hand,” which of course it could not. Your palm would also be a little palm inside the little universe in that single point.

The second question is, if the whole universe was inside one point, what about all the points around it? Physicists would advise you not to ask such stupid questions. 不心疼, they have asked me to shut up as well. Some of them may kindly explain that the other points may be parallel universes. Others may say that there are no “other” 点. They may point out (as Steven Weinberg does in The Dreams of a Final Theory) that there is nothing more to the north of the North Pole. I consider this analogy more of a semantic argument than a scientific one, but let’s buy this argument for now.

The next hurdle is that the singularity is in space-time — not merely in space. So before the Big Bang, there was no time. 遗憾, there was no “前!” This is a concept that my five year old son has problems with. 同样, the Big Bang cosmologist will point out that things do not necessarily have to continue backwards — you may think that whatever temperature something is at, you can always make it a little colder. But you cannot make it colder than absolute zero. 真, true; but is temperature the same as time? Temperature is a measure of hotness, which is an aggregate of molecular speeds. And speed is distance traveled in unit time. Time again. Hmmm….

I am sure it is my lack of imagination or incompleteness of training that is preventing me from understanding and accepting this Big Bang concept. But even after buying the space-time singularity concept, other difficulties persist.

Firstly, if the whole universe is at one point at one time, one would naively expect it to make a super-massive black hole from which not even light can escape. Clearly then, the whole universe couldn’t have banged out of that point. But I’m sure there is a perfectly logical explanation why it can, just that I don’t know it yet. May be some of my readers will point it out to me?

第二, what’s with dark matter and dark energy? The Big Bang cosmology has to stretch itself a bit with the notion of dark energy to account for the large scale dynamics of the observed universe. Our universe is expanding (or so it appears) at an accelerating rate, which can only be accounted for by assuming that there is an invisible energy pushing the galaxies apart. Within the galaxies themselves, stars are moving around as though there is more mass than we can see. This is the so called dark matter. Although “dark” signifies invisible, to me, it sounds as though we are in the dark about what these beasts are!

The third trouble I have is the fact that the Big Bang cosmology violates special relativity (SR). This little concern of mine has been answered in many different ways:

  • One answer is that general relativity “trumps” SR — if there are conflicting predictions or directives from these two theories, I was advised to always trust GR.
  • 除了, SR applies only to local motion, like spaceships whizzing past each other. Non-local events do not have to obey SR. This makes me wonder how events know whether they are local or not. 好, that was bit tongue in cheek. I can kind of buy this argument (based on curvature of space-time perhaps becoming significant at large distances), although the non-scientific nature of local-ness makes me uneasy. (During the inflationary phase in the Big Bang theory, were things local or non-local?)
  • Third answer: In the case of the Big Bang, the space itself is expanding, hence no violation of SR. SR applies to motion through space. (Wonder if I could’ve used that line when I got pulled over on I-81. “Officer, I wasn’t speeding. Just that the space in between was expanding a little too fast!”)

Speaking of space expanding, it is supposed to be expanding only in between galaxies, not within them, 显然. I’m sure there is a perfectly logical explanation why, probably related to the proximity of masses or whatnot, but I’m not well-versed enough to understand it. In physics, disagreement and skepticism are always due to ignorance. But it is true that I have no idea what they mean when they say the space itself is expanding. If I stood in a region where the space was expanding, would I become bigger and would galaxies look smaller to me?

Note that it is necessary for space to expand only between galaxies. If it expanded everywhere, from subatomic to galactic scales, it would look as though nothing changed. Hardly satisfying because the distant galaxies do look as though they are flying off at great speeds.

I guess the real question is, what exactly is the difference between space expanding between two galaxies and the two galaxies merely moving away from each other?

One concept that I find bizarre is that singularity doesn’t necessarily mean single point in space. It was pointed out to me that the Big Bang could have been a spread out affair — thinking otherwise was merely my misconception, because I got confused by the similarity between the words “singularity” and single.

People present the Big Bang theory in physics pretty much like Evolution in biology, implying the same level of infallibility. But I feel that it is disingenuous to do that. 对我来说,, it looks as though the theory is so full of patchwork, such a mathematical collage to cook up something that is consistent with GR that it is hard to imagine that it corresponds to anything real (无视, for the moment, my favorite question — what is real?) But popular writers have embraced it. 例如, Ray Kurzweil and Richard Dawkins put it as a matter of fact in their books, lending it a credence that it perhaps doesn’t merit.

Universe – Size and Age

I posted this question that was bothering me when I read that they found a galaxy at about 13 billion light years away. My understanding of that statement is: At distance of 13 billion light years, there was a galaxy 13 billion years ago, so that we can see the light from it now. Wouldn’t that mean that the universe is at least 26 billion years old? It must have taken the galaxy about 13 billion years to reach where it appears to be, and the light from it must take another 13 billion years to reach us.

In answering my question, Martin and Swansont (who I assume are academic phycisists) point out my misconceptions and essentially ask me to learn more. All shall be answered when I’m assimilated, it would appear! 🙂

This debate is published as a prelude to my post on the Big Bang theory, coming up in a day or two.

Mowgli 03-26-2007 10:14 PM

Universe – Size and Age
I was reading a post in http://www.space.com/ stating that they found a galaxy at about 13 billion light years away. I am trying to figure out what that statement means. 对我来说,, it means that 13 billion years ago, this galaxy was where we see it now. Isn’t that what 13b LY away means? 如果是这样的, 那不是意味着宇宙是至少,,en,整个宇宙从一个奇点开始,,en,怎么会这样的星系是它在哪里,,en,十亿年前,除非它至少有,,en,十亿年才能到达那里,,en,暂时忽略通胀阶段,,en,我听到有人解释说,空间本身正在扩大,,en,这是什么意思,,en,是不是只是一种说法,认为光的速度是较小的,前一段时间的华丽的方式,,en,swansont,,en,引用,,en,最初发布者,,en,忽略所有的休息,,en,怎么会变成这样意味着宇宙,,en,光速是原子结构的固有部分,,en,在精细结构常数,,en,如果c的变化,,en,然后原子光谱的图案必须改变,,en,目前还没有任何证实的数据显示,甲型已经改变,,en 26 billion years old? 我的意思是, the whole universe started from one singular point; how could this galaxy be where it was 13 billion years ago unless it had at least 13 billion years to get there? (Ignoring the inflationary phase for the moment…) I have heard people explain that the space itself is expanding. What the heck does that mean? Isn’t it just a fancier way of saying that the speed of light was smaller some time ago?
swansont 03-27-2007 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mowgli
(Post 329204)
我的意思是, the whole universe started from one singular point; how could this galaxy be where it was 13 billion years ago unless it had at least 13 billion years to get there? (Ignoring the inflationary phase for the moment…)

Ignoring all the rest, how would this mean the universe is 26 billion years old?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mowgli
(Post 329204)
I have heard people explain that the space itself is expanding. What the heck does that mean? Isn’t it just a fancier way of saying that the speed of light was smaller some time ago?

The speed of light is an inherent part of atomic structure, in the fine structure constant (alpha). If c was changing, then the patterns of atomic spectra would have to change. There hasn’t been any confirmed data that shows that alpha has changed (出现了不定期文件声称它,,en,但你需要有人重复测量,,en,剩下的是所有没有变化一致,,en,马丁,,en,要确认或加强什么swansont说,,en,有猜测和涉及c更改随着时间的推移一些边缘或非标准的宇宙观,,en,或α随时间变化的,,en,但不断变化的常数的事情只是变得越来越裁定out.I've一直看超过,,en,年,越来越多的人看,研究证据的可能性就越小,似乎有什么变动,,en,他们用自己data.So排除这种可能性越来越精确它可能是最好忽略,,en,变化的光的速度,,en,直到宇宙学是一个非常熟悉的标准宇宙学的主流,,en,你有误解无忌,,en,理论,,en,胜过特别版本,,en, but you need someone to repeat the measurements), and the rest is all consistent with no change.

Martin 03-27-2007 11:25 AM

To confirm or reinforce what swansont said, there are speculation and some fringe or nonstandard cosmologies that involve c changing over time (or alpha changing over time), but the changing constants thing just gets more and more ruled out.I’ve been watching for over 5 years and the more people look and study evidence the LESS likely it seems that there is any change. They rule it out more and more accurately with their data.So it is probably best to ignore the “varying speed of light” cosmologies until one is thoroughly familiar with standard mainstream cosmology.You have misconceptions Mowgli

  • General Relativity (该 1915 theory) trumps Special Rel (1905)
  • 他们实际上并不矛盾,如果你正确地理解他们,,en,因为SR只有非常有限的当地适用性,,en,喜欢飞船路过,,en,只要GR和SR似乎矛盾,,en,相信GR,,en,这是比较全面的理论,,en,GR没有对距离非常远可以提高速率的速度极限,,en,唯一的限速是当地的东西,,en,你不能赶上,并通过光子,,en,因此,我们能够而且确实观察到的东西,是从我们更为快速的消退比C,,en,那会很远,,en,SR不适用。,,en,这是一个科学上午的文章,我认为去年在解释,,en,谷歌作者的名字查尔斯·莱恩威弗和塔玛拉·戴维斯,,en,我们知道很多东西,是目前超过,,en,十亿LY远,,en, because SR has only a very limited local applicability, like to the spaceship passing by:-)
  • Wherever GR and SR SEEM to contradict, believe GR. It is the more comprehensive theory.
  • GR does not have a speed limit on the rate that very great distances can increase. the only speed limit is on LOCAL stuff (you can’t catch up with and pass a photon)
  • So we can and DO observe stuff that is receding from us faster than c. (It’s far away, SR does not apply.)
  • This was explained in a Sci Am article I think last year
  • Google the author’s name Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis.
  • We know about plenty of stuff that is presently more than 14 billion LY away.
  • 你需要学习一些宇宙学,所以你不会被这些东西混淆,,en,也,,en,并不意味着单点,,en,这是一个流行的错误,因为该话音同,,en,奇点可以在整个区域发生,,en,甚至无限区域,,en,另外,,,en,大爆炸,,en,模型看起来不像物质从一些点呼啸离开爆炸,,en,它不应该被想象的那样,,en,最好的文章,解释常见的错误,人们在科学是这个莱恩威弗和戴维斯的事,,en,我认为这是一月或二月,,en,但我可能是一年的时间,,en,去谷歌上查询,,en,从当地的图书馆获取或在网上找到它,,en,我可以给最好的建议,,en,为了swansont为什么我想,,en,b LY隐含的年龄,,en,b年,,en,当你说,有一个在星系,,en,b LY远,,en,我明白它意味着,,en,十亿年前,我的时间,,en.
  • Also a “singularity” does not mean a single point. that is a popular mistake because the words SOUND the same.
  • A singularity can occur over an entire region, even an infinite region.

Also the “big bang” model doesn’t look like an explosion of matter whizzing away from some point. It shouldn’t be imagined like that. The best article explaining common mistakes people have is this Lineweaver and Davis thing in Sci Am. I think it was Jan or Feb 2005 but I could be a year off. Google it. Get it from your local library or find it online. Best advice I can give.

Mowgli 03-28-2007 01:30 AM

To swansont on why I thought 13 b LY implied an age of 26 b years:When you say that there is a galaxy at 13 b LY away, I understand it to mean that 13 billion years ago my time, 星系是在那里我看到现在的地步,,en,b LY远离我,,en,明知一切从相同点开始,,en,它必须采取至少星系,,en,b年来获得它在哪里,,en,b年前,,en,我敢肯定,我一定是wrong.To马丁,,en,我需要学习相当多的关于宇宙学,,en,但你提到的几件事情让我感到吃惊,,en,我们如何观察到的东西,是从作为FTL后退,,en,不会相对论多普勒频移式给出假想1个 Z,,en,而超越的东西,,en,他们是,,en,外,,en,我一定会抬头看你提到的作者,,en,我敢肯定,我一定是错的,,en,这将取决于你怎么做你的校准,,en,只是看着多普勒频移,而忽略其他影响因素,,en,如果你知道,速度与距离相关,,en (which is 13 b LY away from me). Knowing that everything started from the same point, it must have taken the galaxy at least 13 b years to get where it was 13 b years ago. 所以 13+13. I’m sure I must be wrong.To Martin: 你是对的,,en,还有更多的这种思路的不仅仅是暴和AGN飞机,,en,续集本文,,en,讨论了一些含义,,en,但这部续集太投机得到发表在什么像样的杂志,,en,我跟我的日常工作太忙,担心这些事情,,en,但是我希望要回物理学,,en,并且可能还要理念,,en,在几年,,en,干杯,,en, I need to learn quite a bit more about cosmology. But a couple of things you mentioned surprise me — how do we observe stuff that is receding from as FTL? 我的意思是, wouldn’t the relativistic Doppler shift formula give imaginary 1 z? And the stuff beyond 14 b LY away – are they “outside” 宇宙?I will certainly look up and read the authors you mentioned. 谢谢.
swansont 03-28-2007 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mowgli
(Post 329393)
To swansont on why I thought 13 b LY implied an age of 26 b years:When you say that there is a galaxy at 13 b LY away, I understand it to mean that 13 billion years ago my time, 星系是在那里我看到现在的地步,,en,b LY远离我,,en,明知一切从相同点开始,,en,它必须采取至少星系,,en,b年来获得它在哪里,,en,b年前,,en,我敢肯定,我一定是wrong.To马丁,,en,我需要学习相当多的关于宇宙学,,en,但你提到的几件事情让我感到吃惊,,en,我们如何观察到的东西,是从作为FTL后退,,en,不会相对论多普勒频移式给出假想1个 Z,,en,而超越的东西,,en,他们是,,en,外,,en,我一定会抬头看你提到的作者,,en,我敢肯定,我一定是错的,,en,这将取决于你怎么做你的校准,,en,只是看着多普勒频移,而忽略其他影响因素,,en,如果你知道,速度与距离相关,,en (which is 13 b LY away from me). Knowing that everything started from the same point, it must have taken the galaxy at least 13 b years to get where it was 13 b years ago. 所以 13+13. I’m sure I must be wrong.

That would depend on how you do your calibration. Looking only at a Doppler shift and ignoring all the other factors, if you know that speed correlates with distance, you get a certain redshift and you would probably calibrate that to mean 13b LY if that was the actual distance. That light would be 13b years old.

But as Martin has pointed out, space is expanding; the cosmological redshift is different from the Doppler shift. Because the intervening space has expanded, AFAIK the light that gets to us from a galaxy 13b LY away is not as old, because it was closer when the light was emitted. I would think that all of this is taken into account in the measurements, so that when a distance is given to the galaxy, it’s the actual distance.

Martin 03-28-2007 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mowgli
(Post 329393)
I will certainly look up and read the authors you mentioned.

This post has 5 或 6 links to that Sci Am article by Lineweaver and Davis

HTTP://scienceforums.net/forum/showt…965#post142965

It is post #65 on the Astronomy links sticky thread

It turns out the article was in the March 2005 issue.

I think it’s comparatively easy to read—well written. So it should help.

When you’ve read the Sci Am article, ask more questions—your questions might be fun to try and answer:-)