The Big Bang Catastrophe
Folks that are familiar with the ultraviolet catastrophe probably immediately see why this post has such a title. The point of the ultraviolet catastrophe is that a classical theory of physics incorrectly predicts an emission of radiation that tends to infinity - hence it is not only wrong, but it is, catastrophically wrong. Here's a quick quote from Wikipedia that pretty much says the same:
it can be shown that a blackbody would release an infinite amount of energy, contradicting the principles of conservation of energy and indicating that a new model for the behaviour of blackbodies was needed.
In this post I hold modern physicists, (Big Bang Theorists), to the same standard they hold classical theories of physics and claim that the Big Bang theory which starts with a "singularity", is not only wrong but is catastrophically wrong; since "singularity" is essentially a synonym for the word, "infinity". In other words, singularity is a theoretical catastrophe in the same vein as an ultraviolet catastrophe. Only in this case, we have a prediction of infinite mass, therefore infinite energy (radiation) and therefore infinite gravity. We have three catastrophes packed in one theory.
1) The Infinite Mass Catastrophe.
2) The Infinite Energy or Radiation Catastrophe and
3) The Infinite Gravitational Catastrophe.
 |
| The traditional model of the Big Bang theory (From Wikipedia) |
As you can see they've dug themselves up a pretty big hole here. An infinite one. Isn't this a catastrophe too? Why don't we call this such? Interestingly, physicists have invented new words to circumvent this theoretical inconvenience; with words such as, "singularity", "black hole", "re-normalization" -- when in fact these entities point to an inherent flaw -- a catastrophic flaw -- in their theories. I feel one ought to call a spade a spade. Or else there is a risk of legitimizing fatal flaws in a theory as everyday fact of reality.
See also: The Quantum Catastrophe
Comments
Post a Comment